[2025:RJ-JP:50865] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.14025/2025 Rajuram @ Iram S/o Badraram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Irmo Ki Dhani, Police Station Kukawas, Badoda, District Jalore (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At High Security Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus Directorate Of Enforcement, Headquarter At New Delhi Through Special Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. for ED Ms. Asmita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 21/11 /2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 21/11 /2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 17 /12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the second bail application because the Honble Apex Court, while dismissing the petitioner's Special Leave to Appeal No.2914/2025, issued the following directions:- "Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, and the ongoing prosecution in the predicate offence, we direct the trial court to expedite the process and make an endeavour to conclude the prosecution evidence within 6 months. If no effective progress takes place within 6 months, the petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh and such bail application shall be considered as per its own merits." [2025:RJ-JP:50865] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14025/2025] 2. It’s vehemently argued that the Learned trial court, after receiving the time-bound directions, has not even framed the charges, and the trial of the scheduled offence, as well as of the present case, has yet not been commenced & there is not an iota of chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. The petitioner has already been on bail for a scheduled offence and has been incarcerated in the present case for almost a year. In the predicate offence, more than 130 persons have been arrayed as accused persons and a list of prosecution witnesses contains 189 witnesses, who are proposed to be examined in the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner in the predicate offence alongwith the present case. It is further submitted in the present case the charge-sheet contains a list of 30 witnesses and thousand of documents. It is also contended that the witnesses proposed to be examined by the Directorate Of Enforcement (ED) are Official Witnesses, Bank Officials and Government Servants, there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the trial court order-sheets and prayed for grant of petitioner's second bail applications. It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has reiterated that jail before the trial should not be used as punishment for the offence and Article 21 of the Constitution of India will come to the aid in such situations where pre trial incarceration is bit long. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgments of Manish Sisodiya Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl) No.8781/2024] and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl) No.3986/2024]. [2025:RJ-JP:50865] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14025/2025] 3. Learned ASG has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the past criminal record of the petitioner, coupled with the alleged act, compelled the Honble Apex court to dismiss the petitioner's SLP against this court's first bail rejection order. This court, in its previous rejection order, has elaborately dealt with the merits, including the petitioner's chequered criminal history and the conduct that, even after being enlarged on bail, the petitioner continued to commit offences, including offences under the NDPS Act, etc. The trial could not be commenced as the scheduled offence case file was received on 27.06.2025 and, due to multiple accused in the present case, the filing of various applications by the other co-accused has caused the delay. Even the prosecution is not at fault. It is argued that there is no change in circumstances, the order-sheets dated 30.06.2025, 08.07.2025, 29.07.2025 and 11.09.2025, reflects that the trial is being delayed at the instance of accused persons and not attributed to the respondent-ED. Successive bail application can only be entertained when there is some change of circumstances and not otherwise as laid down in the judgments of State of M.P. Vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajashtan (2005) SCC OnLine Raj 319. It is also contended that mere long incarceration cannot be the sole ground to release an accused on bail. 4. Heard & perused the record. 5. Indubitably, the Hon'ble the Apex Court directed the trial Court to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the receipt of the order. [2025:RJ-JP:50865] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14025/2025] 6. The order sheets placed on record demonstrate that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court were duly communicated to the trial Court on 27.03.2025. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City passed an order dated 16.06.2025 directing the record of the scheduled offence to be sent to the Court of CBI. 7. The case file of the scheduled offence was transferred from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City to the trial Court on 27.06.2025. Thereafter, the concerned Court has attempted to frame the charges, however, the same could not be framed, as the petitioner's advocate remained absent and the trial Court directed the petitioner to furnish the power of attorney. Further, the order sheets also reveals that the other co-accused also filed several applications for supplying the copies of documents etc. and same, after hearing the parties, were duly decided. 8. This Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 has elaborately dealt with the reasons declining the bail to the petitioner, which intends his prima-facie involvement in the PMLA and his criminal conduct. The delay in trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution. Therefore, considering the above facts, the second bail application of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-89