Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 397 (JK)

Joginder Kumar v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-08-04

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K vs. Joginder Kumar and others for commission of offences under sections 306 and 109 IPC pending disposal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) arising out of FIR bearing No. 31/2021 registered at Police Station, Ghagwal after the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.06.2021. 2. It is stated that the petitioner has been in custody for the last six months i.e. from 11.02.2021 and also that the challan has been filed. It is further stated that prima facie no offence under section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 3. Response stands filed in which besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, it has been stated that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and against the society at large. It is further stated that there is strong evidence against the petitioner so he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. Mr. Jagpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been custody for the last nearly six months and the investigation is complete, so the presence of the petitioner is required only for the purpose of the trial. He has further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are required to be proved during the trial and at this stage the petitioner is presumed to be innocent. 5. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned GA has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner so he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. From the record, it is evident that the FIR bearing No. 31/2021 (supra) for commission of offence under section 306 IPC was registered pursuant to the finding of the inquest proceedings conducted under section 174 Cr.P.C. by the police after the death of young girl of 23 years of age. It is alleged that the deceased was the eldest daughter of Sham Lal, who completed her 12th class from private school and thereafter completed her graduation as well. It is alleged that the deceased was the eldest daughter of Sham Lal, who completed her 12th class from private school and thereafter completed her graduation as well. During the college time, she used to ride a private matador and one matador's driver, namely, kuttu (petitioner), was driving the matador from Naran to Hiranagar in which the deceased used to travel along with other children. The petitioner used his sister for getting closer to the deceased and the parents of the petitioner visited twice the house of the deceased for marriage proposal with the deceased-girl. However, the said proposal was rejected by her parents and thereafter, the petitioner was continuously threatening and pressurizing his daughter through telephone. It is further alleged that on 05.11.2020 the deceased got engaged with Atul Sharma and after her engagement, the mother and sister of the petitioner made a call to the mother of the deceased and asked her what was wrong with their son. The deceased was depressed and fed up with the regular threatening calls of the petitioner. 8. On 16.01.2021 the petitioner came to the village in his Bolero (Car) and when the deceased went out of her house and reached near the house of Radhe Shayam, the petitioner was already there and threatened and pressurized the deceased for marriage, as a result of which, the deceased got mentally depressed and thereafter, she took extreme step by consuming some poisonous substance as a result of which she died on 16.01.2021 itself. 9. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.02.2021. The challan has been filed. The custody of the petitioner is required only for the purposes of trial. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are subject to proof and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. The learned trial court has rejected the bail on the apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and may advance threat to the complainant. The said apprehension of the respondent can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. As the petitioner has been in custody for the last nearly six months, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail more particularly when the presence of the petitioner is required for trial only. 10. The said apprehension of the respondent can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. As the petitioner has been in custody for the last nearly six months, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail more particularly when the presence of the petitioner is required for trial only. 10. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The applicant/petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- (i) subject to furnishing of two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court and personal bond of the like amount. (ii) he shall not contact with any of the prosecution witnesses during the trial and shall appear before the trial court as and when required. (iii) he shall not visit the village of the deceased and also he shall contact the complainant as well as his family, physically or through any other mode. 11. In the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the respondent can lay a motion for cancellation of bail of the applicant/petitioner before the trial court. 12. Disposed of.