HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16437/2024 Shivram S/o Sukhlal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Maujpur, Police Station Mahwa, District Dausa (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Sahil Rajpurohit for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 30.11.2022, thereafter, the trial commenced and out of 25 witnesses, till date, statements of only 10 witnesses have been recorded. Counsel submits that none of these witnesses have alleged any specific overt act of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is simply the owner of the premises in question and he has no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident. Counsel submits that the premises in question was let out to one Girish Bansal and this fact has been established on the record in the evidence of the witnesses. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2022 i.e. for about 02 years and 11 months and (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16437/2024] trial will take its own time to conclude, so indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Majeed Lone vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) No.3961/2022 decided on 1.08.2022 and order passed by this Court in the case of Mukesh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.6725/2022) dated 01.06.2023. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the first application of the petitioner was rejected on merits after taking into count that the petitioner was found to be engaged in committing offence of causing loss of petroleum products and also endangering the public safety. Counsel submits that looking to the rider contained under Section 16(C) of the The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 (for short ‘Act of 2011’), the application of the petitioner was rejected. Counsel submits that statements of almost 11 witnesses of the prosecution have been recorded and the trial is in process, so under such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of bail. 3. This Court vide order dated 17.03.2025 sought a report from the Presiding Officer i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Mahua, District Dausa with regard to progress of trial. (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16437/2024] 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, a status report of the trial has been furnished by the Presiding Officer vide letter dated 20.03.2025, which indicates that because of absence of certain accused persons, arguments on charge could not be heard in between the month of April, 2023 till June, 2023 and thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the co- accused Girish Bansal, thereafter, time was sought by the counsel for the accused persons on the subsequent dates for arguments on charge, thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner and co-accused persons on 14.06.2024 and witnesses were summoned. The report indicates that statements of 10 witnesses have been recorded so far, but on certain occasions, the accused persons were not produced from judicial custody and the case was deferred for recording the evidence of the witnesses and for marking exhibit on the articles. The report further indicates that the trial is in process and the same would be concluded expeditiously. 5. Considered the aforesaid report and the earlier order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2022, wherein, it was observed by this Court as follows: “Prima facie, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner engaged in committing offences of causing loss of petroleum products and also of endangering safety of public at large, offence under section 15(4) of the Act attracts punishment of 10 years, which may extend to either life imprisonment or death. In view of the rigor of the section introduced as section 16C, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16437/2024] petitioner. The prosecution case, prima facie, cannot be doubted as fanciful or improbable. The aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case because in above judgments, the rider contained under section 16(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 2011 has not been considered” 6. This Court finds that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain this second bail application. 7. Accordingly, the instant second bail application stands rejected. 8. Before parting with this order, the Trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavours to speed up trial, looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody since last two years and eleven months. 9. The Trial Court would be at liberty to issue appropriate notice/order to the jail authorities to produce the accused on the date fixed for recording the evidence. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/1