The court emphasized that the accused should not be detained by way of punishment, and refusing bail would amount to punishing the accused without trial. The right to liberty and a speedy trial are fundamental rights of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicants presently lodged in District Jail Udhampur for the last almost two (2) years in case FIR No. 19/2021 registered with Police Station Basantgarh (Udhampur) for commission of offences punishable under sections 376-D/342/34 IPC have claimed bail on the grounds, that after conclusion of the investigation a formal chargesheet has been filed against them which is pending trial in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur wherein formal charges have been framed against the applicants/accused, and out of 17 witnesses listed in the challan almost four (4) witnesses including the prosecutrix have been examined. It is averred, that PW-1 (prosecutrix) on 12.04.2022 has been examined by the trial court and she in her evidence has never supported the prosecution story and has not tendered any incriminating evidence against the applicants/accused, and even has not identified them in the Court. It is moreso averred, that applicants/accused are innocent, peace loving citizens of the Country and have committed no offence, otherwise also the offences charged against the applicants/accused are not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty, presumption of innocence always lies in favour of the applicants/accused as it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till guilty is proved against him, the applicants/ accused are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

2. Respondent has opposed the bail on the grounds, that the offences alleged against the applicants/accused are against the interests of the enlarged on bail they would temper with the prosecution evidence. It is contended, that allegations against the applicants/accused are serious in nature, the punishment for the said offences is severe in nature, hence applicants/accused do not qualify for concession of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has sought their release on bail by vehemently canvassing arguments, that applicants are peace loving citizens of the Country, have been falsely implicated in the case as the evidence lead by PW-1 (prosecutrix of the case before the trial Court) has totally exonerated the applicants/ accused from the crime alleged, as she in her deposition has clearly categorically stated that applicants/accused have not committed any rape upon her and even she has not identified them in the Court. It is argued, that for the last two (2) years applicants are languishing in District Jail Udhampur for no fault, in view of the fact that the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded, there cannot be any apprehension on the part of the respondent that if released on bail applicants would temper the prosecution evidence or influence the victim and dissuade her from deposing before the court of law.

4. Learned Government Advocate for respondent has strenuously opposed the grant of bail by articulating arguments, that applicants/accused are involved in serious crime of gang rape which is against the society at large, the nature and character of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court cannot be appreciated in bail application, there is reasonable apprehension that if enlarged on bail the applicants would give slip to law and flee from the course of justice. Prayer has been made for rejection of bail.

5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties, gone through the contents of bail application and objections filed thereto by the respondents and have also gone through the relevant law on the subject matter. The principles which generally govern the grant of bail are relatable to, (i) Seriousness of allegations, severity of punishment, the character of evidence on which the charges is supposed to be sustained, tempering and intimidating of witnesses and chances of running away from the trial, (ii) False implication of the accused, allegation leveled not believable and the wrecking vengeance for political or business reasons. It is also t