Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 359 (JK)

Mohd. Sharief v. State of J&K

2017-07-18

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Through the present bail application, Petitioner-Mohd. Sharief seeks bail, inter alia, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No.59 of 2017 under Sections 307/323/147/148 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station Kathua. The complainant has registered the above case not only to malign the reputation of the petitioner but also to pressurise the son of the petitioner to divorce his wife namely Shakoora, who has eloped with the brother of the complainant and is living with him without divorce from the son of the petitioner. That bare reading of the FIR, it is evident that it does not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of any offence. It is further stated that in case the petitioner is arrested, his reputation will be damaged and his respect in the society will be ruined. It is submitted that if during investigation any case is made out against the petitioner, he is ready to associate with the investigation as and when required. It is also submitted that though the FIR was registered on 17.04.2017, the police remained silent for about forty days and in the last week the police has started raiding the residence of the petitioner with a view to arrest him. 2. On the basis of afore mentioned submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail and he shall not violate and jump over the conditions as would be imposed by this Court. 3. Mr. L.K. Moza, learned Addl. Advocate General, has filed objections, whereby bail application is opposed stating therein that application for grant of bail in FIR No. 59 of 2017 is not maintainable since the petitioner is involved in a very serious offence having attacked the victim very savagely and brutally. The victim has a narrow escape and could save his life with great difficulty. The petitioner and his other co-accused after the commission of crime are evading arrest and absconding. Their arrest in the case is required for recovery of weapon of offence. It is stated that grant of anticipatory bail would seriously prejudice the investigation of the case as the recovery of weapon of offence is required to be affected and which cannot be done without the arrest of the accused persons including the petitioner. Their arrest in the case is required for recovery of weapon of offence. It is stated that grant of anticipatory bail would seriously prejudice the investigation of the case as the recovery of weapon of offence is required to be affected and which cannot be done without the arrest of the accused persons including the petitioner. Learned State counsel, thus, prays for dismissal of the bail application. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. AG representing the State. Learned Addl. AG has also produced the CD file. 5. From the perusal of Police Report and CD file, it revealed that nine persons have been involved in the commission of crime in FIR No. 59 of 2017 under Sections 307/323/147/148 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station Kathua. The allegation against the present accused is that he was keeping enmity with Raju S/o Mohd. Yousaf R/o Bakrak Colony, Tehsil Marheen, District Kathua. On account of this enmity, he constituted unlawful assembly with other accused. On relevant date i.e. 17.04.2017, they all entered into the field of injured, armed with sickles, small axe and lathies. They all attacked on Raju and critically injured him. The present accused has absconded after the commission of crime and he has not been arrested so far. 6. From the perusal of CD File and Medical Report of injured, it revealed that injured sustained grievous injuries. He was referred to Government Medical College, Jammu and from there he was referred to Amandeep Hospital. He has remained in Amandeep Hospital from 17.04.2017 to 23.04.2017. He has been diagnosed as “Çompound Grade 3B# Calcaneum LT. with CLW LT. Proximal 3RD Lateral Aspect Thigh, LT. Knee CLW Medial Aspect, LT. Leg Mid Anterial Aspect, Lacerated wound LT. Foot, Lacerated Deep to Bone wound over lateral aspect.” 7. There are certain cardinal principles of law for grant of bail. These are; (i) nature of accusation; (ii) the way in which the accused has committed the crime; (iii) the punishment of offence; and (iv) general interest of society at large. 8. As already held that injured Raju sustained grievous injuries by the assault committed by the petitioner and other co accused. Investigation is yet to be completed and all the weapons of offence have not been recovered so far. 8. As already held that injured Raju sustained grievous injuries by the assault committed by the petitioner and other co accused. Investigation is yet to be completed and all the weapons of offence have not been recovered so far. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the injured has been discharged from the hospital is not tenable at this stage because after committing the offence, the accused has absconded. Anticipatory bail, in such circumstances, cannot be granted to a person, who has committed serious offence and absconded thereafter, and if bail is granted to such a person, the very faith of public at large on judiciary shall be shaken. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail in the present case. Bail is accordingly rejected. 10. CD file be returned back to Mr. L.K. Moza, learned AAG.