Merely because time would be taken in investigation and trial, the accused cannot be released on bail at the initial stage without remaining in custody even for two weeks

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Before :- Mrs. Mohini Kapur, J.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5180 of 1992. D/d. 13.7.1994

Nimbaran - Petitioner Versus Customs Deptt. - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Shri Praveen Balwada, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Mohini Kapur, J. - As far as the case of Bhuka Ram is concerned, no complaint has been filed against him. Hence, the notice issued to him is dropped. But at the same time it is left open that the Court conducting the trial may consider the question as to whether cognizance can be taken against him or not.
2. As far as the accused Nimbaran is concerned, he was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Shri O.P. Sharma) by his order dated 19th August, 1992. When this Order was produced before this Court in connection with the bail application of another accused, it was considered necessary to issue notice to him to show cause as to why bail granted to him should not be cancelled. This accused was found alongwith the truck when it was intercepted and 93 Kg. silver was recovered from it. His case cannot be said to be similar to that of the other accused who were actually smuggling the silver or were making arrangements for sending the same from one place to another. At the time, the silver was seized, it was in the possession of this accused and in his statement also, he has admitted that he had been paid for transporting this silver. This Court can interfere in the order of grant of bail by Sessions Judge if it arrived at the conclusion that the bail has been wrongly granted to an accused. Merely because, time would be taken in investigation and trial, the accused cannot be released on bail at the initial stage without remaining in custody even for two weeks and it is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the situation properly. The learned Sessions Judge has cited Chandan Singh and another v. State, (1992 RCC 284) but the facts are distinguishable because in that case it could not be said as to which accused was in exclusive possession of silver as it was recovered from a Falsa in front of the house of one of the accused. Here the possession of the accused Nimbaran cannot be disputed and besides this, there is his statement also admitting that he was transporting the silver at the behest of another accused from one place to another. He had remained in custody only for eight days when the order was passed. Considering all these circumstances, the bail granted to accused Nimbaran is cancelled. He should surrender before the trial Court on the next date of hearing who should take him in custody. He can move for grant of bail after some times. With these directions, this application stands disposed.

Order accordingly.