1. This application has been initiated for grant of bail to applicant, Tarlok Chand Mahajan, facing trial for commission of offence under sections 302/452 RPC, 3/25 Indian Arms Act, before learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, being at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.

2. The allegations against the accused enumerated from record, are that on 27.9.2000, at Industrial Area Gangyal, the accused with criminal intention to commit the murder of Rahul Sharma, a disabled person, clandestinely forced his entry into the Factory premises (Olympian Paints) of Rahul Sharma, with a loaded revolver, dragged him from the office of the factory and fired two rounds on him with the revolver in his possession as a result of which Rahul Sharma died and further the licence of the revolver used in the commission of offence was not renewed on the date of commission of offence.

3. After registration of case under FIR No. 485/2000, police swung into action and on conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be presented against the applicant-accused before the trial court. The trial court, after hearing the parties and scanning the material available on record, framed a charge against the accused on 18.5.2001.

4. Out of total 44 witnesses cited in the challan, nine witnesses have been produced, out of which two have been given up by the prosecution. It is further disclosed from the record that the prosecution has cited witnesses, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Omkar Singh,Anpuradh Naik and Akshey Kumar as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Their evidence has also been recorded.

5. The bail of applicant has been sought on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the evidence so led by the prosecution, including the evidence of eye witnesses, did not link the applicant with the commission of the crime. Accused continue in the jail for the last four years as he had surrendered to the custody of Police in October, 2000. It is also stated that during the period of more than three years, after framing of the charge, the prosecution has not exhausted the list of 44 witnesses despite fixation of more than 37 calendars. The long incarceration on account of protracted trial has affected the applicant, both mentally and physically, in violation of his right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

6. In contesting the bail application, Mr. B.S.Salathia, learned AAG, had laid his thrust mainly on the ground that the accused-applicant is involved in a serious offence of murder providing imprisonment for life or death penalty in case of conviction. His further submission is that there are yet many material witnesses to be examined in the case though not seriously disputing the nature of evidence tendered by the witnesses already produced by the prosecution, including the eye witnesses. Mr. Salathia further submitted that the accused-applicant, in case of his release on bail, is likely to prevail upon the witnesses and temper the material evidence. He also stated that possibility of the accused to jump the bail also cannot be ruled out on account of enormity of punishment for the commission of offence under section 302 RPC.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival contentions of the parties in context with the material on record and also relevant provisions of law touching the controversy.

8. Mr. S.K.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused, at the out set submitted that the evidence so far produced by the prosecution, including the eye witnesses, is too refined and feeble to justify further custody of the applicant-accused in the case. Mr. Anand further carried me through the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Anpuradh Naik, Akshey Kumar and Omkar Singh, from the record of the trial court and witnesses who have been declared hostile when did not depose on the dictation of the prosecution. His further submission is that none of the witnesses have suppo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document