Back
2010 Supreme(J&K) 308
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Mohd. Lateef Deedar -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
561-A No. 14-2009
Decided On : 07-05-2010
J. Iqbal, N.H. Shah.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of section 337 SVT 1989 should be interpreted in a manner that protects the rights of the approver and aligns with the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also emphasizes the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
PARDON - Criminal Justice System - 337 SVT 1989 - The court discussed the provisions of section 337 SVT 1989 and the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the purpose of the provision, the rights of the approver, and the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, sought bail after being tendered pardon. The trial judge rejected the bail application citing statutory inhibition under section 337 SVT 1989, which mandates that the person tendered pardon must be detained until the termination of the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision of section 337 SVT 1989 should not be interpreted in a manner that violates the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the rights of the approver and the purpose of the provision in securing a crime-free society.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, after fulfilling the terms and conditions of the pardon, should be detained until the termination of the trial as mandated by section 337 SVT 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of section 337 SVT 1989 should be interpreted in a manner that protects the rights of the approver and aligns with the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A Cr.PC, ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, emphasizing that denying this relief would be unjust and that the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to issue orders to remove injustices and secure the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner, accused in case F.I.R No. 130/2008 Police Station Kupwara registered under sections 364, 302, 34, 420B RPC, was tendered pardon by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara vide his order dated 28-11-2008 after entering into satisfaction that the circumstances of the case warrant so. The petitioner was tendered pardon on the condition that he will make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences and of every other person concerned with the commission thereof. The petitioner accepted the conditional pardon. Statement of the petitioner was recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Prior to this, petitioner's statement was also recorded by the police concerned during the investigation of the case. The report u/s 173 Cr.PC was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the offences being triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the case was accordingly committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Kupwara. The accused were charge sheeted and prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Petitioner's statement was recorded by the learned trial Judge on 16-06-2009 and 17-06-2009. After the statement of the petitioner was recorded, an application was filed on 10-07-2009 before the learned trial Judge praying therein that in view of the fact that pardon has been tendered to the petitioner and that he satisfied the terms and conditions of the pardon by making full and complete disclosure of the facts of the case in his statement, so he shall be ordered to be admitted to bail.
3. Objections were filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, same are reproduced hereunder :
"..................... ....The objections are submitted as under :
1/ That the above titled case is pending disposal before this Hon'ble court and is at the stage of leading evidence. In the case initially there were three persons including above named (approver) and during the course of investigation of the case, the investigating agency has made the said Mohd. Latiff Deedar as accomplice in the case, who was thereafter declared approver by the orders of C.J.M. Handwara.
2/ That the statement of the approver was recorded by this Hon'ble during the course of trial of the case and from the date of arrest till today, the approver is in Judicial custody at central Jail Srinagar.
3/ That I have perused the statement of the approver recorded during the course of trial of the case and other material placed on the record. That the statement recorded u/s 164 CRPC and statement recorded before C.J.M Handwara, and also other evidence placed on the record on the file. I do not find any contradiction in the statement of the approver recorded during the course of trial of the case viz-a- viz to his other statements recorded by him before different Magistrates.
4/ That the statement does not require the presence of the approver in the case for the reasons that he has completed his role.
In the premises it is therefore, prayed that necessary orders in accordance with law may be passed in the interests of justice."
4. The learned trial Judge, vide order dated 12-11-2009, rejected the bail application on the ground that it has no power to admit the approver to bail as there is a statutory inhibition put on its power in terms of sub section 3 of section 337 Cr.PC , SVT 1989 (for short SVT 1989). It is this order which has been called in question in this petition and it is prayed that the order of the learned Sessions Judge be quashed a
