P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Languishing in jail, as under-trial for last eight years, accused-petitioner Jagmohan Singh alias Rinku has laid this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that pursuant to investigation of CR No. 310/2009 lodged with Police Station Sadar, Barmer, for offences under Sections 5/9-B, 6/9-B of the Explosives Act 1884, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, 7/25(1) (D)(1-AA), 29 of the Arms Act, 3/10, 13, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008 and 153-A, 120-B of the IPC. Initially, five accused persons including petitioner was apprehended and subsequently 10 other accused persons were also arrested. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all of them including the petitioner for aforesaid offences. Presently, petitioner along with other co-accused persons is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 04/2016(37/2010) pending before Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Barmer (for short, learned trial Court').
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, has argued that trial of the sessions case is proceeding at snail's pace inasmuch as out of 59 witnesses cited by the prosecution so far only 49 have been examined and petitioner is under incarceration for last 8 years. Learned counsel would contend that the evidence tendered by prosecution during trial for showing involvement of petitioner in commission of alleged offences is unworthy of any credit whatsoever. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel argues that a meaningful construction of the testimony of witness Laxman Singh (PW22) would ipso facto reveal that he has neither identified nor shown nexus of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. While referring to the statement of PW23 Sunil Tak, learned counsel urged that he has turned hostile. Harping on other alleged incriminating evidence of PW24 Mani Ram, PW28 Manish and PW36 Suvinder Singh, it is submitted by learned counsel that depositions of these witnesses nowhere suggest any nexus or proximity of the petitioner with charged offences. Mr. Dhirendra Singh has further contended that there is no recovery from the petitioner much less recovery of any explosive substance. Claiming parity with other accused persons, viz., Mubaraq, Kale Khan alias Kaliya, Ramda Khan, Najeer Khan S/o Jiya Khan and Meeru s/o Babal, who have been enlarged on bail, learned counsel would contend that he is also liable to be released on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Hussain and Anr. v. Union of India [(2017) 5 SCC 702] .;