Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
Rahim and anr. – Petitioner
Vs.
State and anr. – Respondent
MP No.01 OF 2017 in Cr. Appeal No.07 OF 2017
Decided On : 08-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
Accused who have completed half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence for which they were arrested are entitled to be released on bail under Section 497-D Cr.P.C. and relevant case law.
Headnote:
Suspension of Conviction - Bail Application - Section 302, 147, 148 & 149 RPC - Section 304(i) RPC - Section 109 RPC - Section 497-D Cr.P.C. - [302, 147, 148, 149, 304(i), 109, 497-D]
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought suspension of conviction/sentence for offences under Section 302, 147, 148 & 149 RPC. They argued that there were material contradictions in the evidence and that they had already undergone imprisonment for more than half of the sentence awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the provisions of Section 497-D Cr.P.C. and relevant case law, and found that the applicants had indeed undergone half of the sentence awarded to them. The court also noted the pendency of similar cases and the principle that accused who have completed half of the maximum sentence are entitled to be released on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were entitled to suspension of conviction and release on bail based on the provisions of Section 497-D Cr.P.C. and relevant case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 497-D Cr.P.C. and case law such as 'Mithu Pasi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand' and 'Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics' to conclude that the applicants had undergone half of the sentence and were entitled to be released on bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, suspended the sentence awarded by the trial court, and enlarged the applicants on bail with specific conditions.
1. Through the medium of instant application, applicants/appellants-Rahim & Lal Din both are sons of Sh. Jagoo R/o Dudu Khetriyan District Udhampur S/o Sh. Jagoo, presently lodged in Central Jail, Kote Bhalwal, Jammu, seek suspension of conviction/sentence dated 14.02.2017/17.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur in case FIR No.61/2013 of Police Station Ramnagar for offence under Section 302, 147, 148 & 149 RPC and pray for release of applicants on bail stating that there are material contradictions in the evidence which has been led by the prosecution and the applicants/appellants have been unnecessarily convicted by the learned trial Court. It was a case of no evidence at all as the learned trial Court has miserable failed to correctly appreciate the evidence placed on record during the trial. Learned Trial Court has awarded sentence of seven years’ imprisonment each to both the accused under Section 304(i) RPC; seven years’ imprisonment each to both the accused under Section 109 RPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is stated that both applicants/appellants were arrested on 26.05.2013 and are languishing in jail since then till date. They have, thus, have undergone imprisonment of approximately four years & three months.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submitted that in view of the pendency of cases of similar nature, there is no possibility of consideration of the instant appeal for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that there is a settled principle of law that where the accused has already undergone half of the total sentence awarded, he is entitled to be released on bail.
3. On the basis of submissions made above, learned counsel seeks suspension of sentence and release of applicants on bail.
4. Per contra, bail application is opposed by learned State Counsel stating that application for grant of bail is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed out rightly. Since the trial Court has found the appellants guilty of having committed the gruesome murder in further of common intention, applicants/appellants herein cannot be said to be innocent. Applicants/appellants have deliberately and intentionally committed the crime of murder, as such, they are not entitled to be released on bail. That keeping in view the gravity of accusation, nature of evidence; available and severity of the punishment and conviction given, applicants do not deserve the discretion of grant of bail in their favour. He prays for dismissal of the instant bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject.
6. Section 497-D of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
“497-D. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained.-Where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties:
Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded in the writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of personal bond with or without sureties:
Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than maximum period of imprisonment provided for said offence under the law.
Explanation:- In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.”
7. Bare perusal of Sec
