Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Joginder Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K - Respondent
Bail App. No. 155 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021
BAIL - Offences under sections 306 and 109 IPC - The court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, emphasizing that the allegations against the petitioner are subject to proof and that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in custody for nearly six months and that his presence was required for trial only. The court imposed specific conditions to address the respondent's apprehension of tampering with evidence and threatening the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving offences under sections 306 and 109 IPC. The petitioner had been in custody for six months, and the challan had been filed. The trial court had rejected the bail application, citing concerns about tampering with evidence and threatening the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the petitioner's custody duration, the need for his presence only for trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents. Specific conditions were imposed to address the respondent's apprehensions.
Issues: Bail application in a case involving offences under sections 306 and 109 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's custody for nearly six months, the need for his presence only for trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents influenced the court's decision to grant bail. Specific conditions were imposed to address the respondent's apprehensions.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and specific conditions were imposed for the petitioner's release.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K vs. Joginder Kumar and others for commission of offences under sections 306 and 109 IPC pending disposal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) arising out of FIR bearing No. 31/2021 registered at Police Station, Ghagwal after the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.06.2021.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has been in custody for the last six months i.e. from 11.02.2021 and also that the challan has been filed. It is further stated that prima facie no offence under section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner.
3. Response stands filed in which besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, it has been stated that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and against the society at large. It is further stated that there is strong evidence against the petitioner so he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Mr. Jagpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been custody for the last nearly six months and the investigation is complete, so the presence of the petitioner is required only for the purpose of the trial. He has further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are required to be proved during the trial and at this stage the petitioner is presumed to be innocent.
5. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned GA has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner so he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. From the record, it is evident that the FIR bearing No. 31/2021 (supra) for commission of offence under section 306 IPC was registered pursuant to the finding of the inquest proceedings conducted under section 174 Cr.P.C. by the police after the death of young girl of 23 years of age. It is alleged that the deceased was the eldest daughter of Sham Lal, who completed her 12th class from private school and thereafter completed her graduation as well. During the college time, she used to ride a private matador and one matador's driver, namely, kuttu (petitioner), was driving the matador from Naran to Hiranagar in which the deceased used to travel along with other children. The petitioner used his sister for getting closer to the deceased and the parents of the petitioner visited twice the house of the deceased for marriage proposal with the deceased-girl. However, the said proposal was rejected by her parents and thereafter, the petitioner was continuously threatening and pressurizing his daughter through telephone. It is further alleged that on 05.11.2020 the deceased got engaged with Atul Sharma and after her engagement, the mother and sister of the petitioner made a call to the mother of the deceased and asked her what was wrong with their son. The deceased was depressed and fed up with the regular threatening calls of the petitioner.
8. On 16.01.2021 the petitioner came to the village in his Bolero (Car) and when the deceased went out of her house and reached near the house of Radhe Shayam, the petitioner was already there and threatened and pressurized the deceased for marriage, as a result of which, the deceased got mentally depressed and thereafter, she took extreme step by consuming some poisonous substance as a result of which she died on 16.01.2021 itself.
9. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.02.2021. The challan has been filed. The custody of the petitioner is required only for the purposes of trial. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are subject to proof and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. The learned trial court has rejected the bail on the apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and may advance thr
The court considered the petitioner's custody duration, the need for his presence only for trial, and the lack of criminal antecedents in granting bail and imposed specific conditions to address the ....
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to suggest tampering or flight risk, particularly when continued detention amounts to punishment without trial.
The court established that the absence of a statutory presumption of cruelty in long-term marriages, combined with the nature of the charges and the completion of the investigation, can justify the g....
The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right, and the court emphasized the importance of recording the statement of the minor daughter as a material witness.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and the court may grant bail considering the accused's personal circumstances and the need to ensure the accused's presence for trial.
The presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need to secure the presence of the accused for trial were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The lack of incriminating evidence, non-supportive testimony from the deceased's father, and the principle of parity with the co-accused can be grounds for granting bail.
The importance of mens rea in establishing instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
