JAHIR HAK versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 11-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 101
101
JAHIR HAK
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2022)
April 11, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Application for
anticipatory bail by undertrial prisoner who has undergone 8 years
of incarceration – Appellant was arrested in connection with FIR
for offences punishable under ss.10, 13, 15 to 18, 18A, 18B, 19,
20, 23 and 38 of 1967 Act – Charges were framed against him on
29.01.2018 – Appellant has been in custody for a period of 8 years
– By impugned order, his application for bail was rejected by High
Court – On appeal, held: Appellant is charged with offences, some
of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years
and the sentence extending to imprisonment for life – The condition
in s.43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less
stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Prosecution seeks to examine
as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully
examined so far – In view of nature of the case against the appellant,
the evidence and long period of incarceration that he has already
undergone, appellant released on bail subject to such conditions
as shall be fixed by the trial court – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 – ss.10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38
Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 3 SCC 713
relied on
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.605 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.14646 of 2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Mujahid Ahmed, Rizwan Ahmed, Danish Sher
Khan, A. R.Siddiqui, Mohit Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted.
(1) By the impugned order, the appellant is denied bail which is
sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR 113/2014
of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur for offences punishable under
Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘Act of 1967’).
(2) A chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant on
17.09.2014. Charges have been framed against the appellant on
29.01.2018. It is not in dispute that the appellant has been in custody for
a period of almost 8 years. As far as stage of the case is concerned,
examination of only 6 witnesses have been completed. The seventh
witness is being examined. Ms. Pragati Neekra, learned counsel for the
State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109 witnesses. Without
much dispute, it can be found that the appellant who is an undertrial
prisoner, has already undergone a long period of incarceration.
(3) This Court issued notice in this matter on 29.09.2021. Thereafter
the matter came up on 26.11.2021 wherein the complaint of the appellant
that out of 180 witnesses cited by the prosecution, evidence of not even
a single witness was complete was noted; the counsel for the State, was
asked to get instructions and also to submit before the Court as to the
approximate time within which the trial can be concluded.
(4) Thereafter this Court passed the following order on 03.12.2021:
“The petitioner is in custody since the last 7 years. Learned
counsel for the State submits that there are a total of 109 witnesses
for prosecution. It is common case that the evidence of even the
first witness is not yet completely recorded. In the circumstances,
we think it fit to call for a report from the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, as to within what time the
trial in the case can be concluded. Accordingly, we direct that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, shall
send a report as to the earliest point of time when the trial can be
concluded. The report to be sent within a period of three weeks
from today.
List the case on 10th January, 2022.”
Pursuant to the said order, a report was filed by the Judge
concerned wherein it was indicated that there is quite a probability of
taking at least 2 to 3 years in disposal of the instant case. The said report
is d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.