The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the time of considering the grant of bail, there should be no meticulous examination of the statements of the witnesses as it may influence the trial.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. This is an application for grant of bail to the petitioner arrested in connection with FIR No. 197/2018 registered in Police Station Kulgam for offences under Sections 342/392/376-D RPC.

2. The FIR, after investigation, has culminated into a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C which is pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Presiding officer Fast Track Court, Kulgam (the trial court). The petitioner has pleaded not guilty to the charges for the aforesaid offences framed by the trial Court. The prosecution has led its evidence and after conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the petitioner under Section 342 Cr.P.C also stands recorded.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents that even the defence evidence is at the verge of conclusion. The petitioner, after substantial portion of the prosecution evidence had been led, filed an application for bail before the trial Court on 21.10.2019 and the same was disposed of by the trial Court on 28.08.2021. The bail plea of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court primarily on the ground that the offences with which the petitioner was charged, were heinous in nature and that the statement of the prosecutrix, made during the trial, had prima facie, targeted the petitioner for commission of offences.

4. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved of the order dated 28.08.2021, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court with a fresh application seeking bail, primarily on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution, even if read in its entirety against the petitioner, does not make out the offence with which the petitioner has been charged by the trial Court. The petitioner, being in incarceration since the date of his arrest in the year 2018, deserves to be released on bail pending conclusion of the trial.

5. The bail plea of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the respondents. It is submitted that on 20.12.2018 at early hours of the day Police Station, Kulgam, received a written docket from a victim stating therein that two years back, while she was studying in Rajasthan, she met the accused and developed relations with him and finally they decided to marry each other. The matter was brought to the notice of their parents and they also agreed for the marriage. However, after some days the victim came to know that the accused was trying to get him engaged with some other girl. On 20.12.2018 the victim claimed that she approached the accused and his family members and on reaching the spot the accused with the assistance of Mohd. Amin Wani, Farooq Ahmad Wani, Bashir Ahmad Bhat, Safia Jan and Manzoor Ahmad Wani, all residents of Tarigam, Kulgam, subjected her to ruthless beating, torn her clothes and also outraged her modesty. The victim also made an allegation that her golden ornaments too were taken away forcibly by the said individuals. On this information FIR No. 197/2018 under Sections 354, 392, 506 RPC came to be registered in Police Station Kulgam and investigation was set into motion. It is claimed by the respondents that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses including the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On the basis of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the offence under Section 342 and 376 D were added, however, offences under Section 354 and 506 were dropped. On completion of the investigation and the requisite formalities envisaged under law, the challan was produced before the trial Court. The trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 342 and 376 D RPC. It is contended by the respondents that now when the entire prosecution evidence has been led and the defence evidence is vir