JUDGMENT : 1. This quashment petition is filed by the petitioner to challenge order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar [“the trial court”], whereby charges under Sections 302, 344, 363 and 120-B read with Section 109 RPC have been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks quashment of the trial commenced pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet and pending adjudication before the trial court. Alongside this quashment petition, the petitioner has also moved an application seeking his enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner in the quashment petition is that on 22.05.1989 the petitioner got married to one Ms. Shakeela Parveen at Muzaffarpur (Bihar) and started living with his wife at his residence at Nigeen Hazratbal, Srinagar. In the year 1991, on mere suspicion of involvement of the petitioner in militancy related activities, the petitioner was arrested by 30th Bn BSF at Habbak. The petitioner remained in illegal captivity of BSF for almost two and half years and it was in the year 1993 he was let off by the 30th Bn BSF. During the period of his captivity with the BSF, the petitioner was made to accompany the personnel of 30th Bn BSF under the command of Deputy Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore, which cordoned off the house of complainant for search operation. The BSF personnel were looking for one Sajjad Ahmad Bazaz, who, on being identified by the petitioner, was arrested by the BSF authorities and taken in custody. The family of Sajjad Ahmed Bazaz made frantic effort to secure his release from the custody of 30th Bn BSF. The complainant-Fiaz Ahmad Bazaz, the father of the detenue, after exhausting all ways and means of securing release of his son, ultimately lodged FIR No.44/1991 under Section 342 RPC in the Police Station, Nigeen on 27.06.1992. As is evident from the record, investigation of the aforesaid FIR was transferred to the Crime Branch, Srinagar (Kashmir). Since the whereabouts of the detenue-Sajjad Ahmad Bazaz could not be known despite efforts and he was last seen with and picked up by BSF personnel headed by Sh.Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant, as such, case was registered against Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant and other personnel of 30th Bn, who were accompanying him on the date of crackdown and arrest of the detenue. Commandant, as such, case was registered against Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant and other personnel of 30th Bn, who were accompanying him on the date of crackdown and arrest of the detenue. The investigation conducted in the matter by the Crime Branch culminated into filing of Final Police Report wherein besides Mr. Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant, the petitioner was also roped in by the aid of Section 120-B RPC. In view of the fact that valley of Kashmir was declared as disturbed area under Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, prosecution against accused Dilip Singh Rathore and other personnel of BSF could only be instituted with the previous sanction of the central government. It appears that Government of India refused to grant sanction for prosecution of Sh. Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant and other personnel, who picked up the detenue during search operation. This is how the petitioner claims to have been made a scapegoat. 3. It is claimed by the petitioner that though the investigating agency was well aware that the petitioner had migrated to Muzaffarpur (Bihar), where he was gainfully employed and living with his wife, yet the prosecution was instituted against him at his back invoking Section 512 Cr.P.C. It was somewhere in April, 2019, the petitioner was arrested in the case and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar. On 12.12.2019, after a gap of about 14 years since the prosecution, in the absence of petitioner, was instituted in the trial court, charge was framed against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 344, 364, 348, 201 and 120-B RPC. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner claims that no offence has been committed by him. Mere accompanying the Deputy Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore and other personnel of BSF during the search operation in which detenue Sajjad Ahmad Bazaz was arrested and thereafter he could not be found dead or alive, cannot make the petitioner liable for his disappearance and suspected killing by the BSF personnel. It is urged that the prime accused i.e. Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant and other personnel of 30th Bn BSF, who had picked up the detenue in a search operation conducted on 12.02.1992 have not been prosecuted for want of sanction from the central government. It is urged that the prime accused i.e. Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant and other personnel of 30th Bn BSF, who had picked up the detenue in a search operation conducted on 12.02.1992 have not been prosecuted for want of sanction from the central government. The petitioner, who was forced to accompany the said BSF personnel cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be implicated in the crime, which he never committed. He, therefore, prays for quashment of the charge-sheet as also the trial, which is pending adjudication before the trial court. He has also moved an application seeking enlargement on bail and submits that he would abide by all the terms and conditions on which he is enlarged. 5. On being put on notice, Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Kashmir has filed para-wise response. It is submitted that Sajjad Ahmad Bazaz (the detenue), a general merchant from Hazratbal, Srinagar was picked up by BSF party headed by Dy. Commandant Dilip Singh Rathore. The petitioner was accompanying the said BSF party as an informer. It is alleged that the whereabouts of the detenue since then are not known. The father of the detenue along with brother of the detenue lodged a FIR on 17.06.1992 with Police Station, Nigeen after four months of occurrence when they failed on all counts to trace out the detenue. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions of the police headquarter, investigation was taken up by the Crime Branch, Srinagar and the same was concluded as challan under Section 302, 364, 344, 201 RPC against Dy. Commandant Dilip Singh Rathore, BSF 30 Bn and under Section 109/120-B RPC against the petitioner. The petitioner went into hiding immediately after the occurrence and went along with said BSF Bn, which moved to Uttar Pradesh. In order to launch prosecution against Mr. Dilip Sigh Rathore, the matter was sent for prosecution sanction, which was denied by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. The Crime Branch was informed that the said BSF officer had been tried by the BSF court and found not guilty. The father of the detenue and other witnesses were also called to Pantha Chowk where they identified the BSF Dy. Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore, who had picked up the detenue at the instance of petitioner. of India. The Crime Branch was informed that the said BSF officer had been tried by the BSF court and found not guilty. The father of the detenue and other witnesses were also called to Pantha Chowk where they identified the BSF Dy. Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore, who had picked up the detenue at the instance of petitioner. The challan was ultimately submitted to the trial court against the petitioner in his absence by proceeding under Section 512 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that statement of most of the PWs recorded during trial, when the petitioner was proceeded under Section 512 Cr.P.C., effectively involved the petitioner with the commission of offence. After arrest of the petitioner, he was served with the charge on 12.12.2019 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. It is submitted that the statement of PW-1 has been recorded but thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown, no further proceeding could be conducted by the trial court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned counsel for the complainant, I am of the view that no case is made out for quashment of the charge-sheet. 7. As per the prosecution story, the detenue was picked up by the BSF party of 30th Bn headed by Dilip Singh Rathore, Dy. Commandant on 12.02.1992 at the instance of the petitioner. It has also come in evidence recorded during investigation and the statements of witnesses recorded during trial that there was some pervious enmity between the petitioner and the detenue with regard to some payment of money and that it was at the instance of the petitioner, who was an informer of the security agencies, the residential house of the detenue was cordoned off on 12.02.1992 and the detenue was picked up on the identification of the petitioner. What happened to the detenue after he was taken over by the BSF personnel is not known to anybody. Initially a missing report was lodged by the father and brother of the detenue but after finding no whereabouts of the deteue for about four months, a formal FIR was lodged. Keeping in view the sensitivity involved, matter came to be referred to the Crime Branch for professional investigation. Initially a missing report was lodged by the father and brother of the detenue but after finding no whereabouts of the deteue for about four months, a formal FIR was lodged. Keeping in view the sensitivity involved, matter came to be referred to the Crime Branch for professional investigation. It is during this investigation, it was found that the detenue was last seen with the BSF party of 30th Bn headed by Dy. Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore and thereafter his whereabouts were not known. He was, thus, presumed to have been killed in the custody of the BSF authorities. The Crime Branch found sufficient evidence against Mr. Dilip Singh Rathore, who was found responsible for the disappearance of the detenue from custody of BSF authorities. The investigating agency also found petitioner’s involvement in the crime, for, it was on his identification the detenue was picked up. 8. In view of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which were later corroborated when the evidence was recorded during trial, it was found that due to past enmity between the petitioner and the detenue, the detune had managed the cordon off and facilitated the arrested of the detenue in the hands of BSF authorities. It is because of this reason the petitioner has been charged with commission of offence under Section 120-B and 109 RPC. 9. So far as offence conspiracy is concerned, there could be no direct evidence to prove and the conspiracy can be inferred by implication. The circumstances in which the occurrence has happened do lend support to the argument of respondents that the petitioner had conspired in the matter, which ultimately led to the disappearance of the detenue from the custody of the BSF authorities. As is held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Purshotham v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, in most of the cases it is not possible to prove agreement between the conspirators by direct evidence but the same can be inferred from the circumstances giving rise to the conclusion and inference of an agreement between the two or more persons to commit offence. How these circumstances are required to be proved is elaborately dealt in the aforesaid citation and is an aspect, which is required to be considered and appreciated by the trial court at an appropriate stage. 10. How these circumstances are required to be proved is elaborately dealt in the aforesaid citation and is an aspect, which is required to be considered and appreciated by the trial court at an appropriate stage. 10. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioner for offences with which he has been charged. It is not the case where the charges are required to be quashed and challan dismissed. 11. For the foregoing reasoning, I am not inclined to interfere with the ongoing trial against the petitioner nor do I find any legal infirmity in the charges framed. This petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s). Bail App No. 76/2020 12. The facts of the case have already been discussed hereinabove in detail. The petitioner is facing a serious charge of conspiracy and abetting disappearance/murder of detenue Sajjad Ahmad Bazaz, who was picked up by a BSF party of 30th Bn headed by Dy. Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore on 12.02.1992 and later was not traced dead or alive and the investigating agency presumed him dead and has registered FIR against the Deputy Commandant, Dilip Singh Rathore for his disappearance and killing in custody. The petitioner was also booked for conspiracy and abetment of crime 13. The petitioner has been arraigned in the crime because of his previous enmity with the detenue and the fact that he on the fateful day was accompanying the BSF personnel and it was only on his identification that he was picked up and later probably killed in custody by the BSF authorities. 14. Undoubtedly, charges against the petitioner are serious but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the prime accused in the disappearance/killing of the detenue, namely, Dilip Singh Rathore has been let off and held not guilty by the BSF court. Government of India, too, has declined to grant sanction for his prosecution to the Crime Branch. The main culprit, who has allegedly caused disappearance of the detenue while he was in his captivity, has been let off and is a free man and the petitioner is facing trial. 15. Government of India, too, has declined to grant sanction for his prosecution to the Crime Branch. The main culprit, who has allegedly caused disappearance of the detenue while he was in his captivity, has been let off and is a free man and the petitioner is facing trial. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner, who is a married person and has children to support, need not be kept in incarceration, more so when his presence during trial can be ensured by stringent terms and conditions. The petitioner is, thus, held entitled to bail and is directed to be released from custody subject to furnishing of bail bond in the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and two local sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The release of the petitioner from custody shall be subject to following conditions :- (i) That the petitioner shall not leave the Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of the trial court. (ii) That the petitioner shall not interfere or influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not come in contact with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing unless he has been specifically exempted for a particular date by the trial court. 16. Violation of any of the conditions aforesaid shall entail cancellation of bail and the trial court shall be free to consider such cancellation, if violation of terms and conditions aforesaid is brought to its notice. The bail application shall stand disposed of in the above terms.