1. The accused/petitioner is facing trial under Section 302 RPC for having allegedly killed his colleague Ravinder Kumar. The police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. reveals that a message from the Police Post, Kota was received on 10.4.2006, wherein it was reported that militants have fired on the said post as a result of which one of the police official-deceased Ravinder Kumar sustained a bullet injury in his leg. The investigation process initiated by the police concerned unfolded that there was no militant firing on the post, but the accused Shalinder Kumar had fired at the deceased, as a result of which, he died due to excess bleeding. The report further reveals that deceased had over stayed his leave, which annoyed the accused/petitioner and there were some heated exchange between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident.

2. In order to establish complicity of the accused in the crime, certain circumstances were taken note by the Investigating Officer. One of the circumstances was that the accused intentionally sent one person namely Mudassar, who was on duty as a Sentry for fetching water alongwith SPO Qasim Din and one Mohd. Ayub to have his meals from the Village. According to the prosecution this was done to obliterate any evidence in respect of the crime, which the accused has committed. After the Challan was produced, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and only 6 witnesses are required to be examined.

3. Bail application came to be filed by the accused/petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, wherein it was contended that evidence of material witnesses, which has come on record, does not link the accused with the commission of crime.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused by taking into consideration the following facts:

a) That the accused/petitioner being involved in the heinous crime of murder can not be granted bail at this stage.

b) The fact that the accused being incharge of the Police Post, Kota had deputed one Mudassar, who was on duty as a Sentry at 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on the said date alongwith Sentry Qasim Din for fetching water, when they were to remain on duty on the post.

c) That one more SPO Mohd Ayub was also sent for taking meals.

5. It was during their absence from the police post that Ravinder Kumar was shot at by the accused. This being the fact, the trial court concluded that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is connected with the crime, as such, cannot be entitled to bail under Section 497 sub Sec. (1) Cr. P.C.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. which has been elaborately mentioned by the trial court in its order reveals that the petitioner/accused had tiff with the deceased Ravinder Kumar for having overstayed his leave. There was heated exchange between the accused and the deceased, which led the accused to fire at the deceased. The material witnesses, whom the prosecution has examined namely, Liaqat Ali, Zaffar Hussain, Bashir Ahmad, Azamal Ali, Mohd Mudassir, Qasim Din and Abbas could directly throw light in the case. Out of all these witnesses, two witnesses namely, Liaqat Ali and Zaffar Hussain are said to be witnesses of the occurrence. Their version reveals that the accused was sitting with them in the 1st Floor at the time, when deceased was hit by a bullet. It is further revealed from evidence that after they heard the fire, both of them alongwith the accused came down and found that accused was shot at his leg by a fire. It has been stated by these witnesses that at the time when the deceased received the fire, the accused was with them; impliedly meaning thereby that accused has not opened the fire. The other witnesses namely, Azamal Ali, Mohd Mudassir, Qasim Din and Abbas are not witnesses of the occurrence. They have only stated that when they heard the fire and reached there, they fou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document