Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 59 (JK)

Kamal Bakshi v. State & ors.

2012-02-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
It appears that the petitioners are involved, as alleged, in F.I.R No. 47 of 2011 & F.I.R No. 50 of 2011, registered with Police Station Ramgarh, District Samba, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short R.P.C), which according to the prosecution story and the order passed by the trial Court are against the public and economy also, which was perhaps the main grounds for not exercising the discretion under Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) by the Court of Sessions Judge, Samba in their favour, constraining the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of above said bail petitions and have sought bail on the grounds taken in the memo of the petitions. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has filed the objections on behalf of respondents. It is apt to reproduce para 1 of the said objections herein, which reads as under:- “That FIR No. 47 of 2011 and FIR No. 50 of 2011 for offences under section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 RPC have led to the filing of Challan, the same is passing in the Court of Sessions Judge, Samba. The investigation has proved the case of cheating and forgery. The offence is punishable with life or 10 years. The Challan is at the stage of framing of charges. Keeping in view the acts of commission and the public interest, the Petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail at this stage by this court.” 3. During the course of arguments, Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, stated at bar that he has no objection in case bail is granted in favour of the petitioners. 4. The prosecution has already filed the charge sheets in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C and same are pending disposal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Samba. Admittedly, the petitioners are not involved in the commission of offences, which carries death or life imprisonment but are involved, as alleged, in the commission of offences punishable with imprisonment for life or ten years. The petitioners have not tried to give a slip to law and have not acted in such a way, which could be made basis for refusing the bail. The petitioners have not tried to give a slip to law and have not acted in such a way, which could be made basis for refusing the bail. Petitioners are in the judicial custody and their custody is not required by the investigating officer now. 5. Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC page no. 312, I deem it proper to exercise my discretion under section 497 Cr.P.C read with Section 498 of Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, all these petitions are granted and accused-petitioners are admitted to bail in both cases in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, in each case, to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial. This order, however, is subject to following conditions:- i) That the all the petitioners shall deposit their passport(s), if any, before the trial Court, i.e., Court of Sessions Judge, Samba; ii) That they shall not try to leave the territorial jurisdiction of India without prior permission of this Court; iii) That they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall remain present before the Court as and when directed to do so. All the bail petitions are accordingly, disposed of.