Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 722 (JK)

Sanjay Singh v. State

2017-08-23

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard on MP No. 85/2014. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents even when the matter was taken up in the second round. 3. This is an application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the appellant is in custody since 15.08.2008 for commission of offence under section 302 RPC. It is further submitted that from the opinion given by the ballistic expert, it is evident that the bullets have not been fired from the weapon, which was seized from the appellant. It is further submitted that from the forensic report, it is evident that the weapons were used for commission of offence are Revolver and Pistol, which is not the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that even though there were eye witnesses to the incident, yet their testimonies cannot be relied upon in view of the ballistic expert report. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Munshi Singh and others, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1315, Shariff Ahmed and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) SCC (Cri) 1317, Puran Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2008 CRI. LJ 1058 and Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009 3 SCC (Cri) 1352. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. From the record, we find that the earlier an application for temporary bail was filed by the appellant on the ground of marriage of his niece. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.01.2016 dismissed the said application and held that the appellant is convicted for having committed murder of two persons and releasing of the appellant on temporary bail shall be simply to rub salt on the live wounds of the family of the deceased. It was further held that it shall be unsafe to release the appellant, so as to afford him the chance to abscond the way his brother and father (co-accused) have absconded. This Court had also taken into account the heinousness of the offence and has declined to release the appellant on bail. 5. It was further held that it shall be unsafe to release the appellant, so as to afford him the chance to abscond the way his brother and father (co-accused) have absconded. This Court had also taken into account the heinousness of the offence and has declined to release the appellant on bail. 5. Taking into account the statements of five eye witnesses, we do not deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. However, appellant is granted liberty to review the prayer for grant of bail after a reasonable time. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, application is disposed of.