Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 675 (JK)

Romesh Thakur v. State of J&K

2017-08-19

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Through the medium of present application, applicant-appellant seeks bail, inter alia, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in case FIR No.255/2005 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34/201 RPC. The allegations against the appellant are that one Hira Singh, resident of Delhi, was murdered by the appellant and the wife of the deceased in a hotel at Katra by administering him Alprax tablets with liqour and then strangulated him by both accused. After registration of FIR, inquest proceedings into the matter was initiated, statements of the witnesses were recorded and appellant herein was arrested on 10.12.2005. The challan was presented before the learned Sessions Judge Reasi on 06.02.2006. Charge was framed against both the accused persons. The learned trial Court after recording/examining the evidence, while giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted accused No.2 and held the appellant herein guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC and convicted him accordingly. Against the order of conviction, he has preferred the appeal and the same is pending before this Court. It is submitted that the order of conviction is passed without appreciating the evidence in its right perspective because as the prosecution version both the accused have contributed in commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 RPC but only the appellant is convicted that too by taking into account the circumstantial evidence only. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is behind the bar for more than ten years and his entire family is facing a lot of difficulties in all walk of life on account of the fact that the appellant was the only male bread earner in the family. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant would not be finally considered by this Court in near future in view of the heavy pendency of such like cases. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in various judgments have granted the concession of bail in favour of the under trial and convicts suffering sentence of imprisonment pending appeal and also in view of their languishing in the jail for a number of years exceeding the half of the maximum punishment attached to the offence. 4. 4. On the basis of afore mentioned submission, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of concession of bail stating that the appellant will abide by all the terms and conditions as deemed fit by this Court. 5. On the contrary, bail application is opposed by the State counsel, stating that the applicant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Reasi for commission of offence under Section 302/34/201 RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment/order dated 17.07.2010 and Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant is pending adjudication before this Court. It is submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous crime. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The present bail application has been filed by the appellant on flimsy grounds in order to secure the concession of bail as the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is surely to be dismissed on merits. It is also submitted that in case the appellant is granted bail, he may jumps over the bail and flee from the course of justice as the evidence adduced against the appellant is convincing, cogent and corroborated by the documentary evidence. 6. Learned State counsel prays that in view of the gravity of offence committed by the appellant and the nature of punishment imposed, the appellant does not deserve the discretion of grant of bail. Even otherwise, the delay in disposal of the above criminal appeal is no ground for suspension of sentence and subsequent grant of bail. Learned State Counsel, thus, prays for dismissal of the bail application. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and have also considered the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh v/s Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Cri.) No.310 of 2005) as well as judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2013, Ravinder Singh and ors. vs. State, the Division Bench has held that normally when the accused/appellant has remained in jail for a period of more than 10 years in murder case during trial and during pendency of appeal, and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future, the appellant should be released on bail. vs. State, the Division Bench has held that normally when the accused/appellant has remained in jail for a period of more than 10 years in murder case during trial and during pendency of appeal, and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future, the appellant should be released on bail. In addition, we have also considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Akhtari Bi v. State of MP, (2001) 4 SCC 355 . 8. Recently a co-ordinate Division Bench in MP No.01/2015 in Cr. Appeal No.22/2015 titled Bhuvnesh Singh Vs. State and anr, on 25.07.2017 has granted the bail to appellant, as the appellant therein was languishing in the jail for more than ten years in murder case and appeal is pending before this court. 9. In present case, appellant- Romesh Thakur trial involved in FIR No.255/2005 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34/201 RPC before Sessions Judge, Reasi. The allegation against the appellant was that he was having illicit relationship with one Rachna, who was married with Hira Lal, before her marriage. They hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate said Hira Lal. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy they brought said Hira Lal for darshan at Katra on 03.12.2005. They stayed in Prem International Hotel in room No.104 and killed the deceased by strangulation. Both appellant and Rachna w/o deceased Hira Lal were found involved in the FIR. Both were arrested thereafter. After conclusion of trial, Mst. Rachna was acquitted and appellant-Romesh Thakur was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. While sentencing, trial Court has categorically held that appellant-Romesh Thakur was not a professional criminal and there was no criminal history in the past. 10. The appellant-Romesh Thakur is in custody since 2006 and eleven years have elapsed. So he has undergone more than ten years of imprisonment. 11. While sentencing, trial Court has categorically held that appellant-Romesh Thakur was not a professional criminal and there was no criminal history in the past. 10. The appellant-Romesh Thakur is in custody since 2006 and eleven years have elapsed. So he has undergone more than ten years of imprisonment. 11. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court and taking into account the fact that appellant is in jail for the past about 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future, as the appeals of are being heard, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions: (a) That appellant shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this Court. (b) That he shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. (c) That he shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.