CHUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner was arrested on 22/8/1997 in a case for offence punishable under Sec. 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the allegation against him is that he was carrying one kilogram opium with him. Since then he is in jail. It is stated in t he bail petition that he is a poor man and falsely involved in this case by the Investigating Officer. Out of 11 witnesses, 10 witnesses have already been examined during trial but only one witness i.e. 1.0. Bhanwar Singh could not be examined so far, though repeated attempts were made to examine him by issuing summons and bailable warrants. This can be seen from the certified copy of the order-sheets produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Under the circumstances, the accused preferred bail petition before the learned trial Court, who dismissed the same by his order dated 10/8/1998 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in view of the seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Hence, this bail petition.

(3.) From the order-sheet, it appears that 1.0. Bhanwar Singh though duly served by summon and also bailable warrants, was deliberately avoiding to remain present before the Court since 28/1/1998. As many as on 12 occasions the Court had to adjourn the case only because of absence of 1.0. Bhanwar Singh. In fact, the learned trial Judge himself observed that 1.0. Bhanwar Singh is deliberately avoiding to remain personally present before the Court to give evidence. In this type of cases Court has to first issue the summons against the witness and if he fails to remain present in spite of service then the Court has to issue bailable and also non-bailable warrant. No one including 1.0. can play with the Court in this way. This is a fit case where the trial Court should have passed strictures against the 1.0. in strongest word and see to it that the presence of 1.0. is secured at any cost before it.