Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 208 (JK)

Prem Singh v. State of J&K and another

2015-04-23

TASHI RABSTAN

body2015
ORDER 1. Through the medium of this Bail Application under Section 498 Cr.P.C., applicant-accused is seeking bail in case FIR No. 22/1025 registered against him in Police Station, Kanachak, Jammu for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 RPC which upon investigation was challaned in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Fast Track Court) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel, Mr. Shukla that applicant-accused had moved the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court') on 30.03.2015, seeking bail immediately on the completion of sixty days of the investigation from the date of registration of the case on the ground that Police had failed to complete the investigation and produce the challan within sixty days, as the applicant-accused as a matter of right was entitled to bail. Alternatively, applicant-accused had also claimed bail on merits. During the pendency of the application, a challan also came to be presented. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused when was confronted with the amendment in the Cr.P.C., prescribing limit of 'ninety days' for investigation and production of challan in the matter of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC, alternatively application for grant of bail was pressed on merits before the learned Trial Court. As argued by learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused and State, it is not in dispute that while application for grant of bail was pending consideration before the learned Trial Court, challan also came to be presented. Application was, thus, heard on merit and application moved by the applicant-accused for seeking bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 25.04.2015, copy whereof has been appended with the instant application as Annexure-A. 4. Bail Application amongst other grounds appears to have been rejected by the learned Trial Court primarily on the plea of the prosecution that in case applicant-accused is admitted to bail, he may jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses yet to be examined in the Trial Court and also on the ground that release of the applicant-accused at a stage when witnesses are yet to be examined and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the mind of the general public and thwart the course of justice. 5. 5. For facility of reference, ultimate paragraph of order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court containing conclusion of the Court below is reproduced as under:- “Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence with which the accused has been charged, in my considered view there is force in the contention of learned APR that in case the accused is admitted to bail, he will jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, who are yet to be examined. Moreover, release of the accused at this stage and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the minds of general public and thwart the cause of justice.” 6. During the course of arguments of this application, learned counsel for the applicant-accused and State have brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this application, charges against the applicant-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 366 RPC and 376 RPC have been framed and challan has been set out for prosecution evidence. 7. Having failed to get the bail from the Trial Court and in view of the subsequent events like presentation of challan and framing of charges by the Court below, applicant-accused has approached this Court through the medium of instant application seeking his release on bail on the grounds taken in the Bail Application. 8. Before this Court considers the grounds projected by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused for grant of bail and arguments put forth by the learned AAG appearing for the respondents-State to oppose the Bail Application, it would be worthwhile to take notice of the prosecution story as set out in the challan pending trial before the learned Trial Court. 9. That investigation into the case by respondent No. 2 was set in motion when Shri Romesh Kumar father of prosecutrix moved a written application before respondent No. 2 at 4 PM on 27.01.2015 seeking registration of the case against applicant-accused for unlawful abduction of her daughter, i.e., prosecutrix. 9. That investigation into the case by respondent No. 2 was set in motion when Shri Romesh Kumar father of prosecutrix moved a written application before respondent No. 2 at 4 PM on 27.01.2015 seeking registration of the case against applicant-accused for unlawful abduction of her daughter, i.e., prosecutrix. As per the written application submitted by Shri Romesh Kumar, which ultimately became basis of registration of FIR No. 22/2015, complainant Romesh Kumar stated that his daughter, namely, Sheetal Devi was married to one Seeraj Choudhary son of Surinder Choudhary R/O Akhnoor on 25.01.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and that on 26.01.2015, Seeraj Choudahry along with his cousin came back to the house of the complainant-Romesh Kumar and returned at about 5.30 PM along with daughter Sheetal Devi to their home situated at Akhnoor in a Car. It is further claimed by the complainant Romesh Kumar that about 6 PM in the evening, he received a phone call from Seeraj Choudhary informing him that a Balero Car in which some unknown persons were travelling stopped the Car of Seeraj Choudhary at a place called Dumi and after stopping his Car took away Sheetal Devi along with them. He also stated that he was informed on telephone by Seeraj Choudhary that he was also subjected to beating. Upon being informed on telephone, complaint- Romesh Kumar claimed to have rushed to the spot. He further claimed to have made searched for her daughter till 4 PM on 27.01.2015, but could not get any clue, hence came to the Police Station, Kanachak for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 22/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC was registered against the applicant-accused and investigation in the matter was initiated by respondent No. 2. During the course of investigation prosecutrix as claimed by the Police was recovered from the possession of the applicant-accused at Sua No. 1, near Police Nakka. 10. Investigating Officer prepared a site plan of recovery and got the prosecutrix medically examined and seized the clothes of prosecutrix as well as underwear of the applicant-accused which after getting them sealed in presence of Executive Magistrate were sent to FSL for chemical examination. Site plan of the place of occurrence as identified by the prosecutrix was also prepared, applicant-accused was taken into custody and subjected to the medical examination. Police also got the prosecutrix and accused medically examined. Site plan of the place of occurrence as identified by the prosecutrix was also prepared, applicant-accused was taken into custody and subjected to the medical examination. Police also got the prosecutrix and accused medically examined. Statements of the witnesses under Section 164-A Cr.PC were also recorded. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr.PC too was recorded before the learned Magistrate along with two independent witnesses, namely, Shanker Singh son of Swarn Singh resident of Gura Pattan and Pushpa Devi wife of Shanker Singh resident of Gurha Pattan, who were incidentally present on the place of occurrence and had witnessed the prosecutrix going along with accused-Prem Singh. On the basis of investigation conducted by respondent No. 2, Police presented a challan before learned Trial Court against applicant-accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. Police, however, did not find any offence to connect the applicant-accused with the commission of offence punishable under Section 366 RPC. 11. Since the investigation in the matter had not been completed by the Police within sixty days, applicant-accused moved the learned Trial Court for grant of bail presumably on the plea that failure to complete the investigation within sixty days from the date of arrest of the accused would entitle him to bail as a matter of right. He appears to be oblivious of latest amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of which time for completion of investigation has been extended to ninety days in case of certain offences including offence under Section 376 RFC. Faced with the situation application for grant of bail appears to have been pressed by applicant-accused on merits. While the application for bail before the Court below was pending adjudication, challan also came to be presented. Applicant-accused, therefore, sought bail on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer during prosecution. 12. Apart from other grounds, which were taken by the applicant-accused before the Court below, it has been argued that evidence collected during the course of investigation by respondent No. 2 even if taken to be gospel truth is not sufficient to connect applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. 12. Apart from other grounds, which were taken by the applicant-accused before the Court below, it has been argued that evidence collected during the course of investigation by respondent No. 2 even if taken to be gospel truth is not sufficient to connect applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. Other plank of argument, which has been pressed into service by the applicant-accused before the learned Trial Court and also before this Court is that in the given facts and circumstances, and the nature of evidence as collected by the Investigation Officer, it is abundantly clear that prosecutrix had run away with applicant-accused voluntarily and was in constant touch with applicant-accused right from the date of her marriage till the date of alleged occurrence. It has also been argued that applicant-accused and prosecutrix were in relationship for the last so many years, but said relationship had failed to mature into marital tie between the two. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC, as contended by learned counsel for the accused in the Court below and here also is inherently contradictory and improbable being far from truth and not corroborated by any evidence collected during the course of investigation. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused before the Court below and herein also that allegations made against the applicant-accused in the challan even if accepted to be correct without subjecting witnesses to the cross-examination could not, in the opinion of any competent Court of law, be treated to be prima-facie true. On the basis of these arguments and others as noticed by the learned Trial Court, applicant-accused prays for grant of bail and for releasing him from the custody which he is in since 28.01.2015. 13. Learned Trial Court after considering the rival contentions, however rejected the bail plea of the applicant-accused for the reasons given in the order and referred to hereinabove. As stated above in the meanwhile, challan too has been produced and prosecution has been asked to lead evidence. However, before the Court below framed the charges, applicant-accused seeks his release on bail inter alia on the following grounds, which are taken by the applicant-accused in paragraph No. 3 of the application. As stated above in the meanwhile, challan too has been produced and prosecution has been asked to lead evidence. However, before the Court below framed the charges, applicant-accused seeks his release on bail inter alia on the following grounds, which are taken by the applicant-accused in paragraph No. 3 of the application. The grounds on which applicant-accused is seeking bail are reproduced herein as under:- (a) That the rejection of bail application by the learned trial court vide order dated 25.04.2015 is not sustainable. It is not in dispute that the offence attributed to the accused-petitioner is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and as such the bar under Section 497 Cr.PC is not attracted. Besides there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner if released on bail would jump over the bail and win over the prosecution witnesses. The investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer without any interference from any quarter and the challan is now presented before the court. Even, the arguments with regard to framing of charge or otherwise discharge have already been addressed by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. That being the situation, there was no reason to decline bail to the petitioner on the mere apprehension that the petitioner if released on bail would jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses without there being any material to substantiate the aforesaid conclusions drawn by the learned court below. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and would abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Hon'ble Court while granting bail and this was made amply emphatic before the learned trial Court. Petitioner is in Jail for the last more than three months and keeping in view the nature of accusations levelled against him and the evidence collected during investigation; he is entitled to be released on bail. (b) That the findings of the learned trial court that the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature as such the petitioner does not deserve bail, also cannot sustain. Even in cases involving offence against the women there are safeguards provided to the accused, who may be victim of some conspiracy or blackmailing tactics applied by the so called victims of such crime. Even in cases involving offence against the women there are safeguards provided to the accused, who may be victim of some conspiracy or blackmailing tactics applied by the so called victims of such crime. Present is an instance of a complete abuse of police machinery, inasmuch as not only a false and frivolous FIR of kidnapping and abduction was lodged that too after 22 hours of the alleged occurrence but serious allegations of rape in terms of Section 376 RPC were also levelled, which, however, could not substantiated by any evidence collected during the course of investigation. In the newly added Section 497-C which makes special provision regarding bail in certain offences against women including the offence punishable under Section 376, it has been specifically provided that the bail to the accused person would only be denied if a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 Cr.PC, the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. No such conclusion has been arrived at by the learned trial court with regard to the prima facie truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations against the petitioner. On the other hand the petitioner by reference to the evidence collected during the course of investigation made it is abundantly clear that the case registered against the petitioner and investigation by the Investigating Officer was totally false and frivolous and the petitioner had been wrongly framed therein. The story projected by the prosecution did not inspire any confidence and was full of major inherent contradictions going to the root of the veracity of the allegations. The allegations were prima facie false and frivolous thus entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail that too when he had already been in jail for the last more than three months of the investigation had been completed culminating into the presentation of challan before the learned court below. All these aspects however, were not appreciated by the learned court below, which mechanically dismissed the application of bail. The petitioner in view of the submissions made above is therefore entitled to be released on bail so that he can defend himself in an effective manner. Petitioner cannot be punished without a trial by keeping him in jail for indefinite period. The petitioner in view of the submissions made above is therefore entitled to be released on bail so that he can defend himself in an effective manner. Petitioner cannot be punished without a trial by keeping him in jail for indefinite period. That it may be pertinent to mention here that earlier bail application was moved on 25.02.2015 when the investigation was in progress and had not yet been completed. The same was therefore, dismissed being premature as before the submission of challan, it was not possible for the learned trial court to formulate an opinion with regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations levelled against the petitioner. The bail application was thus rejected primarily on the ground that investigation was then in progress and the evidence was yet to be collected. However, there was substantial change thereafter when the investigation was completed and challan was presented before the learned court below and it was revealed that the investigation had failed to prove any offence as having been committed by the petitioner. This prompted the petitioner to approach the learned court below again on 30.03.2015 by filing a fresh application on the basis of changed circumstances. Matter though was heard in detail by the learned court below but the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner were not appreciated by the learned court below in proper perspective and the learned court below was moved by the solitary ground that the rape being the heinous offence and crime against state, is to be viewed differently for the purpose of grant of bail and the petitioner if released on bail would jump over the same and would tamper with the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds the bail application was rejected. The petitioner in view of the facts stated above is entitled to be released on bail. 14. On these grounds the bail application was rejected. The petitioner in view of the facts stated above is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Reiterating the aforesaid grounds of challenge, learned counsel for the applicant-accused has submitted that although it is true that in the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC, applicant- accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right, but, the same is regulated by Section 497-A Cr.P.C., yet in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation makes it a case where this Court would be of the opinion that there are no grounds for believing that accusations against the applicant-accused are prima-facie true. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused pointed out to the glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., particularly when the same is read with the statement of none other than husband of prosecutrix and two independent eye witnesses whose statements too were recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., and learned counsel also referred to the medical evidence to substantiate his submission that offence of rape had not been committed at all. The medical evidence, as contended by learned counsel for the applicant-accused, clearly points out that there was no medical evidence of rape having been committed on the prosecutrix. It is also argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the prosecutrix claimed to have subjected to intercourse without her consent in the wee hours of 27.01.2015 at a place known as Dhera Kheree in the house of one Surinder Kumar son of Ram Lal whereas statement of employees of Raj Palace Hotel Katra and the Register maintained at the Hotel clearly indicate that both applicant-accused and prosecutrix stayed in the Hotel room on the intervening night of 26.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 and left Hotel at about 4 PM in the evening of 27.01.2015. 15. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that if prosecutrix and accused were at Katra in the night of 26.01.2015 till 4 PM of 27.01.2015 how could prosecutrix be subjected to rape on the morning of 27.01.2015 that too at Dhera Kheree, Reasi. Surinder Kumar in whose house alleged occurrence of rape has taken place too has not supported the version of the prosecutrix. Surinder Kumar in whose house alleged occurrence of rape has taken place too has not supported the version of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused, therefore, contended that Investigating Officer rightly concluded the investigation in the face of evidence of independent witnesses that prosecutrix was never abducted by the accused and his associate as alleged and had accompanied the accused voluntarily as is disclosed in the statements of the Seeraj Choudhary, Sahil Choudhary and two independent witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., i.e., namely, Shanker Singh and his wife Puspa Devi. Referring to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that going by the statement of the prosecutrix, she was not subjected to any offence in the night of 26.01.2015 when they were in Raj Palace Hotel, Katra. It is also admitted position that even on 27.01.2015 when prosecutrix claimed to have stayed along with accused at Dhera Kheree, Reasi in the house of one Surinder Kumar, no offence was committed by applicant-accused. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused further argued that allegations of prosecutrix that she was abducted by more than one person too was not proved during investigation. It was also not proved that father of the applicant-accused, uncle and Sarpanch had met duo at Katra or Reasi. Learned counsel finally argued that going by the statement of prosecutrix they travelled from Reasi to Sua No. 1 near Police Post in red vehicle and surrendered before Police whereas as per prosecution story that duo were travelling in a public transport vehicle and were apprehended during checking which was conducted by the concerned Police on prior information which resulted in recovery of prosecutrix from the custody of applicant-accused. Referring to the whole evidence concluded during investigation, it was argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC which is perhaps the only piece of some incriminating evidence against the applicant-accused, cannot be believed to be true even prima-facie, thus, disentitling the applicant-accused to the grant of concession of bail. Referring to the whole evidence concluded during investigation, it was argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC which is perhaps the only piece of some incriminating evidence against the applicant-accused, cannot be believed to be true even prima-facie, thus, disentitling the applicant-accused to the grant of concession of bail. It is also argued that the applicant-accused is in custody since 28.01.2015 and investigation has been completed and that there is no evidence of any attempt on the part of the accused or his relatives to influence the prosecution evidence and that challan has been presented and charges have been framed. That being the position keeping the applicant-accused in custody particularly in the face of evidence collected during investigation would be punitive and would amount to punishing the applicant-accused without trial. 17. Per contra, learned AAG when confronted with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-accused and nature of evidence collected during investigation submitted that pleas raised by applicant-accused even if presumed to have some force would be relevant during the course of trial. As contended by learned AAG in the face of statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC, which is primary evidence, accused cannot claim that there is no evidence connecting him with the commission of offence under Sections 366 RPC and 376 RPC. He further contended that offence of rape is very heinous offence and is crime against the Society, as such, the Courts should be very reluctant to extend the concession of bail to the accused alleged to have committed such heinous offence against the women. He, however, was not in a position to meet other arguments raised on behalf of the applicant-accused. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration and the arguments raised on both sides and have carefully gone through the challan. 19. While considering the Bail Application, what is required to be seen is, the prima-facie involvement of a particular accused connecting him with the commission of alleged offence and its gravity or seriousness. Chances of tampering with evidence can also be a very valid ground for rejecting or accepting the Bail Application and at the same time, the Court has also to ensure that there should not be any hindrance in free, fair and just trial. 20. Chances of tampering with evidence can also be a very valid ground for rejecting or accepting the Bail Application and at the same time, the Court has also to ensure that there should not be any hindrance in free, fair and just trial. 20. The principles which generally govern the grant of bail are relatable to following things:- i/ seriousness of the allegations, severity of punishment, the character of evidence on which the charge is proposed to be sustained, possibility of tampering and intimidating the witnesses and chances of running away from the trial. ii/ false implication of the accused, allegations leveled not believable and wrecking vengeance for political or business reasons. 21. The above principles are required to be kept in mind while exercising powers under Section 498 Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, the Court has only to go into the limited question as to whether a prima-facie case is established against the accused. It cannot go into the evidentiary value, creditability and reliability of the witnesses. However, while examining the bail plea of the accused, the circumstances under which crime is alleged to have been committed, the character and behaviour of the accused person is also to be examined. While general allegations that the accused will tamper with the evidence without there being any supportive material may not be a ground to refuse bail, however, if the accused is of such a character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will abuse his liberty to subvert justice or would tamper with the evidence, then bail may be refused. My view is fortified by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case titled as State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 . My view is fortified by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case titled as State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 . What has been observed in this regard in paragraph 18 of the judgment may be noticed as under:- “It is well settled that the matters to be considered in application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Admn.). While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.(SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas).” 22. It is true that offences of abduction and rape are more serious offences against the women and the person who is prima-facie found to have committed such offences is not entitled to the concession of bail. The offences more particularly against the women have been viewed to be an offence against the Society at large and letting the accused on bail in such heinous offences if prima facie committed would definitely have deleterious effect on the mind of general public and would encourage re-occurrence of such crime, but, at the same time this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that there could be instances where these stringent provisions are also misused. Instances may be few, but, are not improbable. As per the prosecution story and the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said sufficiently that accusations levelled against the accused are prima-facie true. The only incriminating piece of evidence collected during investigation is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC wherein prosecutrix claimed to have been subjected to sexual inter-course without her consent in the wee hours on 27.01.2015 at village Dhera Kheree at Reasi. She has not claimed that she was put to any threats to life and was forced to submit nor she has stated -anything as to why right from the place of alleged abduction till her recovery at Sua No. 1 on 28.01.2015 she never raised any hue and cry and tried to contact any body including his relatives to inform about her abduction and commission of crime against her. She is not supported by her husband and cousin of husband as to with whom she was travelling when she was allegedly abducted. She is not supported by her husband and cousin of husband as to with whom she was travelling when she was allegedly abducted. Two independent eye witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC have clearly indicated that she was a consenting party and had voluntarily left the company of her husband and accompanied the accused in his private vehicle, Balero Jeep, and had even said bye-bye to her husband while leaving. The statements of the employees of Raj Palace Hotel, Katra where they stayed in the intervening night of 26.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 have fairly stated that duo stayed in the Hotel till 4 PM evening of 27.01.2015. This fact is also substantiated by Register maintained in the said Hotel in ordinary course of business transaction. As per the aforesaid evidence, which at this stage cannot be doubted and the applicant-accused and prosecutrix were at Katra till 4 PM on 27.01.2015 as such, it is highly improbable that offence of rape was committed by the applicant-accused with prosecutrix on the wee hours of 27.01.2015 at village Dhera Khere at Reasi. There are other inherent contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix which when read in juxtaposition with statements of other witnesses would make accusations levelled by the prosecutrix prima facie improbable. In the light of this evidence, it would not be just and equitable to keep the applicant-accused in continuous custody particularly when investigation has been completed, challan has been presented and even charges are said to have been framed and also when there is no allegations against the applicant-accused with regard to influencing prosecution or attempting to tamper with prosecution evidence. 23. On the conceptus of the fact and circumstances stated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to release the applicant-accused on bail subject, of course, to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, (ii) The applicant-accused on being released on bail shall attend the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir State without the prior permission of the Trial Court, (iii) That he shall not try to give a slip to law in any way. Moreover, he shall not attempt to contort or influence any witness or any other person related to the case. (iv) In case of the applicant-accused violating any of these conditions, the State will be free to apply for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court. 24. With the above directions, this Bail Application is disposed of. However, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove are only for the disposal of this bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. 25. Registry to send copy of this order to the learned trial Court for information.