IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Mohan Lal, J.
Kaushalya Devi and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Another – Respondents
B.A. No. 299 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Section 439 - Sections 302, 458, 147, 201 RPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their arrest in a criminal case involving serious charges. The trial court rejected their bail applications, leading to the petitioners' appeal to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the severity of the charges, the nature of the evidence, and the impact on society. It emphasized that bail should not be granted if the evidence overwhelmingly points to the accused's involvement in the crime.
Issues: The court analyzed the gravity of the charges, the credibility of witnesses, and the impact of releasing the accused on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail cannot be granted if the evidence strongly suggests the accused's involvement in a serious crime. It emphasized that the gravity and seriousness of the offence are crucial factors in deciding bail applications.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
JUDGMENT :
Mohan Lal, J.
1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the ‘Code’) for grant of bails in their favour in case FIR No. 31/2019 for commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 458, 147 and 201 RPC registered with Police Station Panchari, (District Udhampur). It is averred, that the petitioners are the permanent residents of UT of J&K and are entitled to the protection of their fundamental rights including right to liberty and freedom; that the petitioners have been wrongly and falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No. 31/2019 u/ss 302, 458, 147 and 201 RPC for the allegations that they are involved in murder of one Bodh Raj and soon thereafter registration of FIR all the petitioners herein have been arrested and are facing incarceration in jail; that on completion of investigation in the aforesaid FIR a criminal challan/charge sheet has been presented against the accused persons including the petitioners in the year 2019 which is pending disposal/trial before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur wherein as many as 31 prosecution witnesses have been projected out of which only 14 witnesses have been examined so far and none of the witnesses have stated incriminating against the petitioners while the remaining unexamined witnesses are official witnesses; that since the presentation of challan, as many as 66 hearings so far have taken place and whole of the prosecution witnesses have not been examined till date; petitioners are females and are in custody for the last more than 03 years, petitioners 1 and 2 filed a joint application for grant of bail before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur, after inviting objections and hearing the parties the trial court rejected their bail application vide order dated 23.10.2021 on such grounds and for such reasons which are not legally tenable; that the District Level Service Authority in reference to the decision taken in the Under-Trial Review Committee (UTRC) meeting held on 02.08.2022 issued notice dated 02.08.2022 to various Advocates requiring them to file bail application before the concerned Courts in accordance with the NALSA SOP Release-UTRC @ 75 Campaign launched by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India on 16th July 2022, pursuant to which names of the petitioners have been indicated at Serial Nos. 3 to 5 in the notice dated 02.08.2022; that all the petitioners filed three separate bail applications before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur for grant of bail on various grounds primarily on the ground that they are females and as per different judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India as also by the writ Courts, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail; that the Trial Court clubbed all the three bail applications and vide order dated 10.08.2022 rejected the bails of the petitioners on the grounds and reasons which are not legally sustainable; that the Trial Court while rejecting the bail application of petitioner No. 1 has failed to appreciate that she is in advance stage of her life being 62 years of age and is suffering from comorbidities; that similarly, the trial court also did not consider the bail application of petitioner No. 2 that she is of marriageable age and has already slipped in depression, which is a disease that devastates a person without any physical ailment; that the bail application of petitioner No. 3 too has not been considered by the trial court that she is a young married lady and is suffering from various health disorders; that there is remotest possibility of conviction of the petitioners in the aforesaid criminal challan as there is no evidence much less a cogent evidence which warrants involvement in the aforesaid criminal case, however, in the event the petitioners are held guilty at the end of the trial, they being females would be readily available to serve the sentence; that i
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Rajan @ Pappu Yadav and Another
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Another
The court established that the denial of bail should not serve as a pre-trial punishment and emphasized the importance of the accused's right to liberty and a speedy trial.
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 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.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
The severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.
The court granted bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations against them and the application of special provisions favoring women in bail considerations.
The severity of the accusations, legal provisions, and judgments referenced influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
Point of Law : The proviso in Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the Court that even if the offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for....
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.