Advocates:
['M/S N A RONGA AND ASSOCIATES', 'B A KHAN', 'BABA MUSHARAFF AND UMAIR RONGA', 'SAJAD ASHRAF G A', 'TAWHEED AHMAD', '', 'ASIFA PADROO AAG']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 21.12.2022

Pronounced on: 30.12.2022

Bail App No.109/2022

MANZOOR AHMAD MIR

…PETITIONER(S)

Through:-

Mr. N. A. Ronga, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through:-

Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA.

Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate.

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

1)

The petitioner has sought bail in FIR No.118/2010 for offences

under Section 302, 380 and 457 RPC registered with Police Station,

Batamaloo, Srinagar.

2)

As per the case of the prosecution, deceased Rukhsana Jabeen

was married to the petitioner in the year 2006. The deceased was

working as a Nurse in the Health Department of the J&K Government

whereas the petitioner was working as Constable in the Police

Department. After the marriage, the petitioner is alleged to have

harassed his wife and taken away her gold ornaments. On 25.08.2010

when the deceased was proceeding to her duty during night in an

ambulance, the petitioner boarded the said ambulance and forcibly

Bail App No.109/2022 P a g e | 2

tried to deboard the deceased from the said ambulance. The petitioner

is stated to have beaten up his wife besides extending threats to her.

On 29.09.2010, the deceased was found dead in her room. The police

was, accordingly, informed and after lodging of the FIR, investigation

was set into motion. During the investigation of the case, it was found

that, the deceased, had been done to death by the petitioner. The

challan against the petitioner was filed and he is facing trial for

offences under Section 302, 380 and 457 RPC.

3)

The petitioner has sought bail only on the ground of his long

incarceration and on account of violation of his right to speedy trial.

According to the petitioner, he is in custody for the last more than 12

years but the trial against him has not concluded as yet. It has been

contended that there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near

future, as such, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4)

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the case including the trial court record.

5)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated during his

arguments that the speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused

and once this right is violated, the accused is entitled to be enlarged on

bail. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of

the Supreme Court in the cases of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation and anr. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No.1627/2022 decided on 18.05.2022) and Saudan Singh vs.

Bail App No.109/2022 P a g e | 3

State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 decided on 25^th

February, 2022).

6)

Per contra, Mr. Sajjad Ashraf, learned Government Advocate,

has submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence by

murdering his wife and there is enough evidence on record to prima

facie show his involvement in the alleged crime, as such, rigour of

Proviso (1) to Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code is attracted

to the instant case having regard to the fact that the offences

committed by the petitioner carry maximum punishment of deaths

sentence. It is also averred that on an earlier occasion when the

petitioner was granted temporary bail in the year 2014, he had

threatened the prosecution witnesses.

7)

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been

arrested in the instant case on 15.12.2010 and the challan against him

was laid before the trial court on 12.01.2011. The record further

shows that 44 witness have been cited in the challan and till date

evidence of the prosecution has not been completed.

8)

In the light of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether a

person who has been accused of having committed a