HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Ab. Qayoom Sheikh - Appellant
Vs.
UT of J&K Through SHO P/S Achabal - Respondent
Bail App No. 09 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Bail - Offences under Section 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, 511 IPC - Section 397, Cr.P.C. - Section 439, Cr.P.C. - Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State, (1987 (3) CRIMES 363) - Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks bail for offences under Section 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, 511 IPC. The trial court rejected the bail application citing the grave nature of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of a bail application by the Sessions Court does not bar the High Court from entertaining a similar application. The court also emphasized that the seriousness of the alleged offences cannot be the sole reason for rejecting bail, as every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Issues: The issues revolve around the rejection of the bail application by the trial court, the legality of successive bail applications, and the consideration of the seriousness of the alleged offences in bail decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of a bail application by the Sessions Court does not prevent the High Court from considering a similar application. The court also emphasized that the seriousness of the alleged offences cannot be the sole reason for rejecting bail, as every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the petitioner is admitted to bail with specified conditions.
JUDGEMENT/ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking bail, in connection with a case arising out of FIR No.08/2021 for offences under Section 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, 511 IPC registered with Police Station, Achabal, Anantnag.
2. Before coming to the grounds urged in the bail application, it would be apt to refer to the prosecution case as emanates from the charge sheet laid before the trial court.
3. On 09.10.2021, the prosecutrix lodged a written report before the police of Police Station, Achabal, alleging therein that the petitioner has abused her once again and that when she was coming back to her home after fetching bread, the petitioner abused her and used foul language. On the next day also, the petitioner wrongfully restrained her and threatened to kill her. On the basis of this report, police registered FIR No. 108/2021 for offence u/s 341, 306 IPC and started investigation of the case. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, on the basis of which offences under Section 354, 354-A and 451 IPC were added to the case.
4. It seems that statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shangus. In the said statement, the prosecutrix has deposed that on 08.10.2021 at about 9:30 AM, when she was all alone in her house, the petitioner entered her house and told her that he has something to tell her. She further stated that the petitioner caught hold of her hand and when she raised an alarm, the petitioner gagged her mouth and touched private parts of her body. She further stated that she was laid on the ground by the petitioner who sat on top of her and touched private part of her body and tried to commit rape upon her. The prosecutrix went on to state that she hit the petitioner with a broom and escaped from his clutches. According to prosecutrix, she called her sister and when she came on spot, the petitioner offered her Rs.10,000/- and apologized to her but she refused to take the money, whereafter the petitioner gave a beating to her on her shoulder with a broom. She further stated that she went to the hospital and also submitted an application with the police but the same was not entertained by the police. On the next day also, when the prosecutrix went out of her house to fetch bread, the petitioner wrongfully restrained her and used foul language against her. Further the petitioner threatened to kidnap her. The prosecutrix further alleged that the petitioner is a political worker and he wants to get her ration card cancelled.
5. After investigation of the case, offences under Section 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, 511 IPC were found established against the petitioner and, accordingly, the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial court. It appears that the trial court vide its order dated 29.12.2021, has rejected the bail application of the petitioner by observing that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is against the society and is having far reaching consequences.
6. In the application it is contended that the FIR and the charge sheet emanating there from is absolutely false. It is further contended that the allegations made in the report lodged by the prosecutrix, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged, and the allegations made by her in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not on similar lines, inasmuch as the prosecutrix, while making her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has made material improvements, which clearly goes on to show that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the petitioner due to personal grudge. It is also contended that the petitioner is prepared to abide by all the conditions in case he is enlarged on bail.
7. The application has been resisted by the respondent by filing a reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that initially FIR for offences under Section 341, 506 IPC was registered but later on during the course of investigation, on the basis of
The seriousness of alleged offences cannot be the sole reason for rejecting bail, as every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The main legal point established is that the presumption of innocence, the need for a speedy trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the investigational right of the police are crucial fa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix's statement for the purpose of granting bail, and the court's authority to ta....
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 need for a substantial change in circumstances for successive bail applications and the limited impact of the period spent in custody and the framing of charges on the bail application.
The gravity and seriousness of the offence are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.