Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 558 (JK)

Aijaz Ahmad Malla v. State of J&K

2018-07-24

M.K.HANJURA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions, Judge, Ganderbal, passed in an application for the grant of bail in case bearing FIR No. 30/2017, registered at Police Station Lar, for the commission of offences under Sections 363 and 376 RPC, the accused-Aijaz Ahmad Malla has knocked at the doors of this Court seeking bail in his favour. 2. What comes to the fore from the perusal of the material on record is that a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr. PC has been laid against the accused before the competent Court in which the trial has commenced. The contention of the applicant as propounded by him in his application is that a false and frivolous case has been registered against him. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. He is languishing in the jail for the last more than seven months by now. The evidence recorded during the trial of the case does not connect him with the commission of the crime imputed to him and, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the commission of the offences attributed to him. He has deep roots in the society. He will not flee from justice, in case he is admitted to bail and above all that the prosecutrix is the married wife of the applicant, as gets revealed from the perusal of the Nikah Nama attached to the application.. 3. In the status report filed by the State, it has been pleaded that the offences under Sections 363 & 376 RPC, having been established against the applicant, a charge sheet has been laid against him in the Court of law. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, does not call for any interference. It is based on law, logic and reason. It is lucid and luminous. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, has touched all the aspects of the matter, where after he has come to the conclusion that the applicant does not deserve to be admitted to bail, taking into consideration the gravity of the offences levelled against him and the application of the rigor of Section 497-C (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to his case, buttressed with the other requirements. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, has held that the Court has already proceeded to frame the charge against the accused for the commission of an offence under Section 363 and 376 RPC, which makes it manifestly clear that in the opinion of the Court a prima-facie case is made out against the accused in which he has been put to trial. He has proceeded to hold that in a case under Section 363 and 376 RPC, the statement of the prosecutrix is of paramount importance/consideration and a conviction can be sustained on the sole statement of the prosecutrix, in case it breeds confidence in the eyes of a reasonable and prudent man. He has further held that although elaborate documentation is not required to be made in the bail applications, lest it may not prejudice the case of either party yet the Court is duty bound to find out whether there is a semblance of truthfulness in the allegations levelled against the accused. He has also stated that the offence of rape is heinous and horrid which not only wrecks and ruins the victim but also shatters and rattles the conscience of the general public and, therefore, taking into consideration the societal concerns, it will not be proper for this Court to allow the application at this stage. The learned trial Court has further held that the accused to whom the concession of bail has been accorded was found involved in the commission of offences under Section 363 & 376 RPC, while as, the applicant is involved in and facing trial for the commission of offences under Sections 363 & 376 and, therefore, the ground of parity as urged by the applicant is devoid of any merit and substance. 6. The prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence. The contention of the applicant is that she is his married and wedded wife. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Court on 26th November, 2017 is a sequel to the fact that she was forcibly kidnapped by the accused from the custody of his father and thereafter taken to different places including Jammu and during this period she was repeatedly raped by the accused. On the face of such a statement, the contention of the applicant appears to be misplaced. On the face of such a statement, the contention of the applicant appears to be misplaced. However, it is within the domain and power of the trial Court to evaluate and assess the evidence on record to find out the credibility of this argument. 7. The law is that the Court has to exercise the discretion in the matter of the grant of bail on the established principles of law and not in derogation to them. Discretion has to be guided by law, duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or vague. The Court must not yield to the spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence. The judicial discretion of judge must be exercised not in opposition to, but in accordance with the established principle of law. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Ayar in the case of “Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P”., reported in 1978 AIR, Supreme Court 429, while dealing with this aspect held that Vesting of discretion is the unspoken but inescapable, silent command of our judicial system, and those who exercise it will remember that discretion, when applied to a Court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. 8. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, has in his wisdom found that the applicant is not entitled to bail on the set of facts involved in the case. He has exercised the discretion on the sound principles of law after taking into consideration a variety of factors which weighed against the applicant, that are, the gravity of the offences with which the accused has been charged and the application of the bar created under Section 497-C (1) Cr. PC to his case, more particularly the age of the prosecutrix and on the strength of these grounds the bail application has been rejected. The statement of the prosecutrix placed on record by the applicant also points towards the guilt of the accused and knocks the bottom out of his contention that the prosecution has manufactured and maneuvered a case against him. 9. Looking at the instant application from yet another angle, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, rejected the application of the applicant by his order dated 14.05.2018. 9. Looking at the instant application from yet another angle, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, rejected the application of the applicant by his order dated 14.05.2018. The accused filed the application for bail before this Court on 07.06.2018, i.e. after twenty three days. There has been absolutely no change in the circumstances of the case from the date of the order of the trial Court till such time that the bail application has been moved before this Court. It is well settled law that no successive application for bail can be allowed/entertained unless and until there has been a change in the circumstances of the case. No doubt, the principle of res-judicata does not have its application to the bail applications but the Court has to peep deep to see whether there has been any perceptible change in the circumstances of the case and in case it is not found to be so the filing of a successive application will lead to a bad precedent. An order rejecting an application of bail would not per-se-close the doors of the applicant in moving another application on a subsequent occasion but the condition precedent is that there should be some fresh material and further developments in the case as will impel and actuate the Court to consider the successive application for bail. There is no legal bar in entertaining the subsequent application if it is pointed out that there has been a change of substantial nature in the facts and circumstances of the case since the date of passing the earlier order. Nothing to substantiate so has been stated in the application on hand. 10. In view of the preceding analysis, there appears to be no merit and substance in the application of the applicant. The same entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court for information.