Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 331 (JK)

Crime Branch Kashmir v. Aijaz Ahmad Bhat Shah

2012-06-10

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2012
1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A of J&K Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (hereinafter, for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of order dated 4.10.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar in an application filed by respondent in case titled Ajaz Ahmad Shah v. Crime Branch Srinagar in File No.516-A/M, on the grounds taken in the memo of petition. 2. The remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be availed/invoked/ pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. 3. It appears that respondent came to be arrested in FIR No.68/2007 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir and was granted bail subject to the limitation and fetters contained in the bail order. He sought permission to proceed to Delhi for medical treatment which was granted on 17.6.2007. Thereafter respondent moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar seeking permission to visit his ailing wife in the United States on the ground that the Crime Branch has not produced the challan and he cannot move outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir because of the conditions contained in the bail order. Trial court considered the matter and granted permission for four months. 4. Virtually the Chief Judicial Magistrate has relaxed the conditions contained in bail order dated 26.10.2007 for a period of four months. Petitioner-Crime Branch herein has questioned the said order on the ground that the trial court has no such jurisdiction. 5. The court has to ensure that the accused must remain present before the investigating officer, trial court or appellate court and shall not try to jump over the bail in any way. It is apt to reproduce sub-section 2(a) of section 497 Cr.P.C. herein. "497. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. (1) ...................... (2) ...................... 5. The court has to ensure that the accused must remain present before the investigating officer, trial court or appellate court and shall not try to jump over the bail in any way. It is apt to reproduce sub-section 2(a) of section 497 Cr.P.C. herein. "497. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. (1) ...................... (2) ...................... (2-a) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which, may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989, or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may impose, any condition which the Court considers necessary- (a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter; or (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or of the commission of which he is suspected; or (c) otherwise in the interest of justice." In terms of mandate of section 497(2-a) Cr.P.C., the court which grants bail can impose any condition. Accordingly, conditions came to be imposed while granting bail, as discussed hereinabove, and respondent-Aijaz Ahmad was granted permission to leave the country for four months to see his ailing wife. In the given circumstances the grounds taken and the arguments made by learned counsel for petitioner that the court below has no such jurisdiction is devoid of any force. 6. Having glance of the above discussion, it can be safely held that the impugned order is legal one and needs no interference. 7. Viewed thus, this petition is dismissed.