Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 55 (JK)

Amrish Khajuria v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir

2022-02-21

MOHAN LAL, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2022
ORDER : 1. By the medium of these two applications, one filed by convict Amrish Khajuria (appellant in Crl A(D) No. 6/2021 and the other filed by Ashok Kumar (appellant in Crl A (D) No. 9/2020, the applicants are seeking their enlargement on bail pending disposal of their respective appeals. The bail is sought by the applicants primarily on the ground that the principal accused in the case has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, there is no reason or justification to treat the applicants herein, who were convicted along with the principal accused, differently. 2. The respondent has opposed both the bail applications on the ground that the applicants have been convicted for commission of heinous offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 RPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG appearing for the respondent, however, does not dispute that the co-accused, namely Vishal Sharma, who was convicted along with the applicants herein has been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. He also could not point out any distinguishable feature in the case of the present applicants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. It is seen that the vide judgment dated 07.07.2020 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“trial Court”], the applicants were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/341 RPC and 3/4 Arms Act and Section 302/341 RPC respectively and the co-accused of the applicants, namely Vishal Sharma was also convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34/341 RPC and 30 Arms Act . 6. The trial Court vide its order dated 09.07.2020 convicted all the three accused i.e the applicants herein and Vishal Sharma for commission of aforesaid offences and sentenced Vishal Sharma to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC, simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.500/-for offence under Section 341 RPC and simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.2000/-for offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act. The applicant Amrish Khajuria was similarly sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-for offence punishable under Section 302 RPC, simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.500/-for offence under Section 341 RPC and simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.2000/-for offence punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act. The applicant Amrish Khajuria was similarly sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-for offence punishable under Section 302 RPC, simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.500/-for offence under Section 341 RPC and simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.2000/-for offence punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act. The applicant Ashok Kumar was also sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10000/-for offence under Section 302 RPC and simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.500 for offence under Section 341 RPC them to undergo life imprisonment and fine. 7. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are subject matter of challenge in three different appeals which are pending adjudication in this Court. 8. As is further seen from the record, all the three convicts including the applicants herein filed three different applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending disposal of their respective appeals which applications were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.06.2021. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the rejection of bail, one of the convict, namely Vishal Sharma approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition i.e SLP(Crl) No. 5911/2021. The Supreme Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the convict Vishal Sharma had already undergone 14 years of incarceration and that his appeal filed before the High Court was not likely to be heard at an early date, granted bail to him. For facility of reference, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Vishal Sharma is reproduced hereunder: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the fact that the petitioner has already undergone nearly 14 years of incarceration and his appeal filed before the High Court is not likely to be heard at an early date, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, we allow the prayer for bail and direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. 9. From the reading of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting bail to the convict Vishal Sharma, we see no reason or justification to deny similar treatment to the applicants herein. 9. From the reading of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting bail to the convict Vishal Sharma, we see no reason or justification to deny similar treatment to the applicants herein. Aforesaid Vishal Sharma, who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was also one of the accused along with the applicants herein, who were ultimately convicted by the trial Court. Like Vishal Sharma, the applicants herein are also incarceration for more than 14 years and their appeals are also not likely to be heard at an early date. If that be position, we are left with no option, but to accord similar treatment to the applicants herein, for, we do not see nor the learned AAG could point out any distinguishable feature in their case. 10. We find that the applicants are also similarly situated with Vishal Sharma and their role in the commission of crime ascribed to them is not, in any way, less than the role allegedly played by Vishal Sharma in the commission of crime. As a matter of fact, the shots with which the deceased died were fired by Vishal Sharma. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case and on the analogy of the order of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Vishal Sharma on 18.01.2022 (supra), we are inclined to accept the bail plea of the applicants and direct their release on bail on the following terms and conditions: (i). They shall submit personal bonds in the amount of Rs.1.00 lac before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and two sureties of the like amount before the Superintendent of the concerned Jail; (ii) They shall attend their appeals on regular basis as and when same are listed in the Court; (iii) they shall not leave the UT of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of this Court; (iv) They shall not indulge in the commission of any offence while being on bail. Applications are disposed of accordingly.