IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Abdul Rashid, son of Mohd Iqbal Harga and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
UT of Jammu and Kashmir through SHO, Police Station Gandoh – Respondents
Bail App No.237 of 2023 C/W Bail App No. 240 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2024
BAIL - Criminal Law - Sections 302, 307, 458, 436, 511, 201, 120-B RPC and 7/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the grounds for grant of bail, delay in completion of trial, and the merit of the bail application. The court emphasized the severity of the charges, the nature of the accusation, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. The court also considered the contention of the petitioners regarding the bail granted to co-accused and rejected it based on the dissimilarity of their roles in the alleged crime.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail on the grounds of long incarceration and lack of support from material prosecution witnesses. The trial court rejected their bail application, leading to the present bail applications before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in trial was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that the severity of the charges weighed against granting bail. The court also rejected the contention of the petitioners regarding the bail granted to co-accused based on the dissimilarity of their roles in the alleged crime.
Issues: Delay in completion of trial, merit of the bail application, and contention regarding bail granted to co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The severity of the charges, the nature of the accusation, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge were crucial in deciding the bail application. The dissimilarity of the roles played by the co-accused in the alleged crime was also a determining factor.
Final Decision: The bail applications were dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to apply afresh after a change of circumstances.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this common order, the afore-titled two bail applications, which arise from FIR No.35/2017 for offences under Sections 302, 307,458,436,511,201,120-B RPC and 7/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station Gandoh, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. The petitioners, who are facing trial in respect of charges for offences under Sections 302, 307,458,436,511,201,120-B RPC and 7/25 Arms Act before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (‘trial Court’ for short), have moved this Court for grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of Cr.PC.
3. The first ground that has been urged by the petitioners is that they have been arrested in the year 2017 and since then, they have been in custody without there being any possibility of completion of trial in near future. It has been contended that only 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court, whereas in the challan, as many as 55 witnesses have been cited and that there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of the trial. Therefore, on the ground of long incarceration of the petitioners, they are entitled to grant of bail as the right to speedy trial has been recognized as a fundamental right which is being violated in the case of the petitioners.
4. The other ground that has been raised by the petitioners is that most of the material prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and that they have not supported the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. It has been submitted that even if the remaining witnesses depose against the petitioners, still then, there are no chances of their conviction. Hence, even on merits, the petitioners are entitled to bail. It has also been contended that two other accused Bashir Ahmed and Altaf Hussain have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and the role of the petitioners in the alleged crime is of a lesser degree than the role of afore-named two co-accused, as such, the petitioners are entitled to bail even on merits.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the record of the case including the trial Court record.
6. Before adverting to the grounds that have been urged by the petitioners for grant of bail, it would be apt to notice that the petitioners had initially applied for bail before the trial Court in the year 2019 and their bail application was dismissed by the said Court vide order dated 20.09.2019. Thereafter, they moved application for grant of bail before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vided order dated 04.08.2021 passed in Bail App No. 194/2020 declined the prayer of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners again approached the trial Court on 23.07.2022 but their bail application was dismissed by the said Court in terms of order dated 19.07.2023. So, the present bail application is the fourth in series filed by the petitioners.
7. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, the same has been briefly stated by the trial Court in its order dated 19.07.2023 while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners. It would be apt to reproduce paras (5) and (6) of the said order wherein the facts have been narrated. The same read as under:
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another
The severity of the charges and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge are crucial in deciding bail applications in serious offences.
The legal position relating to grant of bail in heinous offences like murder was emphasized, highlighting the need for prima facie reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the off....
The severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.
Grant of Bail - Trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of granting of bail, the court can only go into the ques....
The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious cri....
The requirement of establishing conspiracy and the inadvisability of detailed exploration of evidence at the bail stage.
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
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.