Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 401 (JK)

Amrit Kumari v. State Of J&K

2010-07-20

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2010
1. This bail application is filed on behalf of four accused persons. Out of these four accused persons, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have been granted interim bail by this Court on 03.03.2009 and that interim bail is continuing till date. 2. FIR No. 09/08 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 RPC was filed against the accused-petitioners on 15.02.2008. The occurrence had allegedly taken place on 20.01.2008 and the accused were arrested on 17.02.2008. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The bail application was initially filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri on 03.03.2008, which was rejected on 10.03.2008. One more bail application was filed by the accused-persons on 15.03.2008, which was also rejected on 10.05.2008. The accused-persons thereafter filed another bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, which was rejected on 11.09.2008. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Considered the matter. 4. It is submitted at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of 18 listed prosecution witnesses, 15 have been examined by the learned trial Judge. When the bail application was considered and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, only few prosecution witnesses were examined at, that point of time. After examining fifteen prosecution witnesses, the entire scenario has changed. The impact of evidence on the bail application is also to be seen for the purpose to consider whether accused-petitioners would be entitled to concession of bail or not. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners are languishing in the jail for more than two and half years. Learned counsel also submitted that conduct of the accused-petitioners has remained satisfactory, inasmuch as they have not made any attempt to impede the process of administration of justice and have not tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-petitioners be ordered to be enlarged on bail. 5. A person, who is accused/charge of the commission of offence, is deemed to be innocent until such time guilt is proved against him beyond all shadow of doubt. A person, who is charged by criminal court for commission of non-bailable offence which does not entail life or death penalty, can be considered for grant of bail on the established principles of law. A person, who is charged by criminal court for commission of non-bailable offence which does not entail life or death penalty, can be considered for grant of bail on the established principles of law. In criminal justice system accused has to remain available to face the trial so as to enable the Court to pass final judgment in the matter. The purpose of engrafting bail provisions is to ensure that the accused remain available during the trial in the cases in which it is alleged that accused has committed non-bailable offence. In order to ensure the continuous presence of the accused before the trial Court, the accused can be put into three types of custody viz. judicial custody, police custody and in the custody of surety. The accused has only to satisfy the Court that during the trial he will not jump the bail and will not impede the process of administration of justice, inasmuch as he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. While considering the application for bail, nature of offence and the charge made against the accused is also to be considered by the concerned court. 6. In this case, when the bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, only three prosecution witnesses were examined. Two more prosecution witnesses have to be examined by it. The impact of their evidence is to be considered on the right of the petitioners to seek bail. This Court, at this stage, deems it proper to allow the learned trial Judge to consider and take a decision on the application which may be filed by the petitioners. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of by providing that petitioners will file fresh application containing all the grounds available to them before the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge will consider the entire material in accordance with the settled principles of law and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date fresh bail application is filed by the accused-petitioners. Till the fresh bail application is decided by the learned trial Judge, accused-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in this application, namely Amrit Kumari W/o Rattan Singh and Anita Kumari D/o Karnail Singh, will continue to remain on interim bail as has been already granted to them by this Court. Till the fresh bail application is decided by the learned trial Judge, accused-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in this application, namely Amrit Kumari W/o Rattan Singh and Anita Kumari D/o Karnail Singh, will continue to remain on interim bail as has been already granted to them by this Court. The continuation of the interim bail, or otherwise, will be subject to the order to be passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri.