Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
M.K. Hanjura, J.
Bashir Ahmad Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 35 of 2017, B.A. No. 72 of 2017
Decided On : 19-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : I. Sofi.
For the Respondent: M.A. Rathore.
The seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the impact on social peace and order are significant factors in determining whether bail should be granted.
Headnote:
Bail - Offence under section 306 RPC - [306 RPC] - The court discussed the refusal of bail for the petitioners based on the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the impact on social peace and order. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the need to prevent the petitioners from absconding or tampering with evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail after being accused of abetting the deceased to consume poison. They claimed innocence, stating that the allegations were false and baseless. The state contended that the deceased was forced to end her life by the family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not deserve bail due to the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the impact on social peace and order. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the need to prevent the petitioners from absconding or tampering with evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted bail despite being accused of abetting the deceased to consume poison.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the impact on social peace and order were significant factors in denying bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed, and the connected bail application was also dismissed. Interim directions, if any, were vacated.
JUDGMENT :
M.K. Hanjura, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara, whereby he has declined to grant bail in favour of the petitioners for the commission of an offence under section 306 RPC, the petitioners have filed the revision and a successive bail application before this Court on the grounds inter-alia that the base line of the order of the Ld. Sessions Judge, is that the offence, the commission of which has been attributed to them carries a punishment often years; that they will flee from justice, in case they are admitted to bail; that they will influence the prosecution witnesses in case of their release and that the grant of bail in their favour shall have serious ramifications.
2. The petitioners have pleaded in their petitions that they have not committed any offence. The Court below has failed to consider the relevant factors guiding the grant or refusal of bail. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are patently false, baseless and concocted. There is no substance in the fact that the petitioners are involved in the alleged offence. The Court below has rejected the application of the petitioners on the premise that they have abetted the deceased to consume poison. The rejection of the application of the bail, as such, is patently illegal and against the law. It amounts to prejudging the matter. The petitioners are law abiding citizens. The impugned order is perverse and has caused miscarriage of justice. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused on considerations which are extraneous. In the end, the petitioners have prayed that they may be admitted to bail.
3. The state has resisted and controverted the petitions of the petitioners chiefly on the grounds that the deceased Fahmeeda Bano wife of the petitioner namely Bashir Ahmad Bhat consumed some poisonous substance at her home. She was taken to the District Hospital, Handwara from where she was referred to SMHS Hospital Srinagar for further treatment where she breathed her last. The dead body was taken into the police custody. A case was registered at Police Station Handwara and during the course of the investigation of the case, it came to the fore that the family members of the deceased had abetted her to put an end to her life.
4. Heard and considered.
5. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara, has by a well-reasoned order rejected the application of the petitioners and the relevant excerpts thereof that have a bearing on these petitions are reproduced herein below verbatim et-literatim:-
"But the concession of bail cannot be extended to the bail petitioners 1 and 4 for three reasons: the first reason is that the judicial Magistrate has not granted bail to the petitioner No. 1; this court requires to consider if he has brought anything which would suggest that there has been an appreciable change of circumstances in the case from the time of denial of his bail by the Judicial magistrate. The record does not evince that there has been any such change in circumstances of the case. Regarding bail petitioners no. 4 the defence has not produced on record anything which would suggest that he is presently suffering from any neurological malady. The defence counsel has produced on record copy of a certificate issued by the Govt. Psychiatric Hospital Srinagar on 19.02.2004 evincing that the bail petitioner No. 4 was diagnosed as a case of Seizure Disorder and that he has been advised treatment of his disease for a prolonged period of time. But he has not produced on record anything to show or suggest that he continues to suffer from that disease which would have persuaded this Court to consider his case apart from that of bail petitioner no. 1.
The second reason for denying bail to the petitioners No. 1 and 4 is that they face a serious allegation of having forced the deceased into consuming poison and end her life; the bail petitioner No. 1 was husband of the deceased and the bail petitione
