SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHAN LAL, J.
Romesh Chander & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. - Respondents
Bail App. No. 347 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Muzaffar Iqbal Khan.
For the Respondent: Amit Gupta.

The approach of the court in granting bail should not be to detain the accused by way of punishment, and material witnesses cannot be easily influenced by the accused.

Headnote:

Bail - Offence u/s 304-B IPC - [Jagdish Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.], [Arjun Katal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners/accused sought bail for their enlargement in a case of commission of offence u/s 304-B, IPC. The deceased committed suicide and the accused were implicated based on the statement of the deceased's mother. The accused argued for bail based on the prolonged incarceration, their roots in the society, and the need to care for their minor children.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, and the possibility of influencing witnesses. It emphasized that at the stage of granting bail, the court can only consider whether a prima-facie case is established against the accused. The court also highlighted the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues revolved around the seriousness of the allegations, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, and the potential influence on witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles established in the cases of Jagdish Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors. and Arjun Katal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., emphasizing that the approach of the court in granting bail should not be to detain the accused by way of punishment, and that material witnesses cannot be easily influenced by the accused.

Final Decision: The petitioners/accused were admitted to bail with certain conditions imposed to prevent influencing or intimidating the prosecution witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners/accused in terms of section 439 Cr.P.C. have sought the indulgence of this court for their enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 11/2021 of Police Station Gharota Jammu for commission of offence u/s 304-B, IPC. It is averred, that the petitioners are citizens of India and permanent residents of village Sarote in U.T. of J&K, and as presently are lodged in District Jail Jammu, as such, they are entitled to the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India; that applicant No. 2 is the real brother of applicant No. 1 is also married and out of which three issues were born, the eldest boy is 11 years old and two daughters ageing between 9 to 10 years; that on 14.01.2018 for reasons not known to anyone, wife of applicant No. 1 namely Sushma Devi committed suicide by hanging herself with ceiling fan, police concerned initiated an inquest proceedings immediately and conducted the post-mortem, the inquest proceeding continued until 06.02.2021 when F.I.R. for commission of offence u/s 304-B, IPC was lodged against both the applicants who are real brothers and one sister namely Mulkhi Devi, and consequently, all three were implicated upon the statement of mother of the deceased; that the inquest proceedings were initiated immediately after deceased Sushma Devi committed suicide on 14.01.2018, the prosecution witness Vidya Devi give her statement u/s 175 Cr.P.C. after lapse of three (3) years and falsely implicated all these accused persons who have committed no offence at all; that Mulkhi Devi was admitted to bail by the Ld. Court of Sub-Judge Jammu whereas both these applicants were taken into custody immediately on 06.02.2021 alongwith their sister for alleged commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC and after investigation chargesheet was presented before the Ld. Trial Court on 09.03.2021 which still at its initial stage and charges have not yet been framed against both these accused persons; that both the accused persons moved two separate application for their bail before Ld. Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge Jammu and the trial court without appreciating the factual aspect of the matter and without looking into the particular facts that the inquest proceedings continued for about three years and the prosecution witnesses who is heavily relied upon by the investigating agencies kept mum for such a long period until 06.02.2021 when she made a statement alleging therein that her daughter was harassed and met with cruelty for demanding more dowry which led her to the commission of suicide on 14.01.2018; that the Ld. Trial Court has also not considered another vital fact which speaks of humanity in it's profundity when applicant No. 1 submitted through his counsel that his two minor children Namely Aryan Bhagat age about 5 years and Varun Kumar age about 4 years are left with no support to fall back upon as they lost their mother at the first instance; that applicant No. 1 Ramesh Chander was subjected to polygraph test also and nothing incriminating was reported by the experts who conducted the polygraph test; that the minors have lost their mother and are left with no support to fall back, these applicants are required to admitted to bails so that they may take of their minor children who are suffering for no fault of theirs; that applicants are ready to furnish the personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of this court as and when directed by this court and they are also ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the court if granted bail.

2. Respondents have opposed the bail on the grounds, that accused persons alongwith co-accused Makhni/Mulkhi Devi (nanand of deceased Sushma Devi) use to torture, taunt and beat the deceased for dowry viz.; demand for vehicle, washing machine & AC etc.; father of deceased being a poor person could not meet the demand of the accused, thereby, on 14.01.2018 the deceased Sushma Devi (W/o A-1 Romesh Chander) hang

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top