The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of absence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the offence must be satisfied when granting bail in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment, and reasons for such satisfaction must be recorded.

1. Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition, is to the order of Learned Sessions Judge, Kulgam, dated 25th July, 2011, in case titled "State v. Abdul Razak Parray and ors." FIR No. 246/2009, Police Station, Kulgam, under Section 302,102-B RFC, whereby the Trial Court has granted bail to Shri Bashir Ahmad Bhat S/o Habib-Ullah Bhat R/o Kelam, Tehsil Kulgam — respondent no. 3 herein, one of the accused facing trial on the afore-stated charge.

2. First, a closer look at the background facts.

3. On 19th September, 2009, a written report was lodged by Ghulam Mohi-Din Bhat S/o Habib- Ullah Bhat R/o Kelam, Kulgam — petitioner herein, with Police Station, Kulgam, alleging therein that in the evening on the said date, Shri Abdul Razak Parray S/o Gula Ahmad alias Amma Parray, with 36 other accused all residents of Kelam, Kulgam, formed an unlawful assembly in the premises of local Jamia Masjid, and in furtherance of common object of the assembly, armed with lathies and stones attacked amongst others one Nawaz Ahmad Bhat, and in execution of the criminal conspiracy hatched prior to the occurrence, severely thrashed Shri Nawaz Ahmad Bhat with the intention to kill him and that the victim was injured due to murderous assault and breathed his last in the local hospital.

4. The receipt of the report prompted Police Station, Kulgam registered case FIR No. 246/2009 under Section 148,149,323,325,336,341,427,447,302,102-B RPC. After usual investigation, the charge sheet was presented before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulgam, who in turn after fulfilling the requirement of Section 205 (d) Code of Criminal Procedure committed the case to the Learned Sessions Court, Kulgam. Learned Sessions Court, Kulgam, on going through the charge sheet and the material submitted therewith and on hearing the prosecution and the accused found all the accused in the charge sheet to have prima facie committed offences alleged against them. The accused were formally charged of the offence alleged against them in the charge sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty, making it necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the charges. Shri Bashir Ahmad Bhat — respondent no. 3, is one of the accused facing trial on the charge of having committed offences punishable under Section 302,102-B RPC.

5. The respondent no. 2, after the charge was framed, filed an application for grant of bail on the grounds pleaded therein. The application was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 2nd February, 2011, on the grounds that most of the eye witnesses had yet to step in the witness box on the date the bail application was dismissed.

6. The respondent no. 3 after an interval of about four months made a fresh bid for bail, the application was allowed vide order dated 25th July 2011, and the respondent no. 3 admitted to bail and directed to be let off subject to the conditions laid down in the order.

7. The Trial Court order dated 25th July, 2011, whereby respondent no. 3 / accused has been enlarged on bail is questioned by father of the deceased in the present Criminal Revision Petition, requested in alternative to be treated as a petition under Section 561-A CrPC on the grounds that nothing extra ordinary had happened between 2nd February, 2011, and 25th July, 2011, to persuade the trial Court to take a view different from one taken on 2nd February, 2011, when the first bail application was dismissed. It is pointed out that the prosecution witnesses who appeared in the witness box during the intervening period had as a matter of fact, reinforced the prosecution case that the respondent no. 3 was part of a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased (Late Nawaz Ahmad Bhat) and in execution of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the respondent no. 3 with his co-conspirators the deceased was killed as per the plan. It is next urged that the learned trial Court granted bail to the respondent no. 3, without recording satisfaction that there were no reasonable grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document