1. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No. 68/2016 registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under sections 302 or 302/34, 364 or 364/34, 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. Applicant’s second bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.173/2023) was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2023. Thereafter, applicant’s bail was canceled by order dated 03.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.21/2024.

3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant’s second bail application had been allowed by this Court on 22.08.2023 after extensive arguments and after considering the factum of pending cases against the applicant (30 cases). Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for cancellation of applicant’s bail, which came to be allowed by order dated 03.09.2024, essentially because the applicant was found indulged in another offence punishable under section 307 and 365 of the IPC (Sessions Case No.08/2024) during the liberty he was enjoying.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the above referred case, where the applicant was allegedly found indulged under Section 307 and 365 of IPC, has been decided and the applicant has been acquitted by competent trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.11.2024. He argued that when the reason for which the applicant’s bail was canceled had ceased to exist, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail or in other words the cancellation order dated 03.09.2024 deserves to be recalled.

5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand submitted that acquittal in the above referred case is on account of the fact that the victim had turned hostile. He added that applicant is a habitual offender and has tampered with the evidence by influencing the witnesses, in order to support his cause.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in the meantime, the applicant has been convicted for offence under section 307 of IPC and under provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment and prayed that his involvement in series of heinous cases disentitles him for any indulgence by this Court, as his release would be against the societal interest and the same would disturb the public tranquility.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is to be noted that applicant’s second bail application was allowed by this Court on 22.08.2023, on which stage, the factum of pending 30 cases against him, too was considered. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 22.08.2023:-

“12. After going through the material on record and judicial precedents cited at Bar, this Court finds that the case in hand is a case different than the usual cases, wherein the applicant is accused of felony of committing murder; as many as 30 cases are pending against him, including the present case and one more of such nature and co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

13. In the present factual backdrop, this Court is not persuaded to accept present application for bail simply because the co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail. The large number of cases pending against the petitioner is reflective or indicator of he being a prospective threat to the society.

14. In the case like the one, which this Court is seized of, the liberal approach in granting bail cannot be applied. Applicant’s personal liberty cannot be given precedence over the need of protection of society from criminals.

15. Adverting to of the case, which cannot be overlooked simply because the applicant has a criminal track record, this Court is of prima-facie opinion that chances of charges against the applicant being brought home are bleak for want of direct evidence or necessary material. No recovery has been made from the present applicant and there is absence of circumstantial evidence. Hence, it cannot be said with certitude that the prosecution will be able to establish the charge leveled against the applicant.

16. The important aspect that the applicant is facing incarceration for more than 6 years cannot be lost sight of.

17. True it is, that 30 cases which are pending against the applicant tend to be stumbling block in his way of getting bail, but applicant’s constitutional rights cannot be altogether ignored. He has remained behind bars for 6 years and 6 months essentially because of his past conduct. He is facing long drawn trial in which a list of 37 witnesses has been given by the prosecution.

18. The fact that out of total 30 cases, the applicant has been acquitted in 19 cases persuades this Court to grant him benefit of bail, because pending of multiple cases will lead to protraction of the trial of the present case as his presence would be required in all the criminal cases in which he is facing trial.

19. This Court is, therefore, of the view that keeping the applicant incarcerated till indefinite period would be against the settled canons of law.

20. In light of the facts noticed above and being guided by the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”

9. It is also to be taken note that at the instance of complainant, the bail already granted to the applicant came to be canceled by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 by observing thus:-

“5. It is to be noted that while granting bail to the respondent no.2 on 22.08.2023, this Court had adopted a rather lenient view considering that the accused was behind the bars since 13.02.2017 and the trial was proceeding at slow pace, apart from considering merits of the case. But, it is clear that the respondent no.2, who is a habitual offender has misused the liberty granted to him.

… … …

… … …

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the respondent no.2 has misused the liberty of bail granted to him by indulging in offences of serious nature, this Court feels that it is fit case to cancel the bail granted to the respondent no.2.”

10. A perusal of the above quoted paragraphs shows that while granting the bail to the applicant vide order dated 22.08.2023, various factors prevailed in the mind of the Court, including that he has suffered incarceration for more than 6 years.

11. Consequent to the order dated 03.09.2024, the applicant has further remained incarcerated for about 5 months and therefore, his total incarceration is approximately 7 years. That apart, out of the long list of the witnesses, testimony of 9 is yet to be recorded – the trial is likely to take substantial time.

12. Moreso, the reason for which the bail granted to the applicant was canceled, itself has ceased to exist as the applicant has been acquitted by the competent trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2024. According to this Court, when the very edifice for which the bail was canceled has lost its legs, there remains no justification for keeping the applicant behind the bars because, on merit, his cases had already been examined by this Court.

13. Hence, the third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh arrested in connection with FIR No. 68/2016 registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under sections 302 or 302/34, 364 or 364/34, 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

14. Having regard to the applicant’s past conduct and antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a condition for enlargement - the applicant will have to appear before the SHO, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur at 04:00 pm on any of the date between 25th-30th of each month until completion of trial of present case.

15. Applicant shall nevertheless be required to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

16. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.