HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Bail App. No.58/2020

CrlM No.386/2020

Rajesh Kumar

…Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)

Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. Shreya Nagpal, Adv.

v/s

UT of J&K

…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

ORDER

25.11.2022

01.

Through the medium of this application, the petitioner seeks grant of

bail in anticipation of his arrest in the case registered vide FIR No.31/2020

at Police Station Nagrota for the commission of offence punishable under

sections 467/468 IPC on the ground that he had been robbed in the case

without any basis. It has been averred, that the applicant, as Tehsildar had

discharged his official duty in connection with regard to attestation of a

mutation which can only be questioned before the Appellate or the

Revisional Authority in case, someone is aggrieved of the same and that

mutation has been attested on the basis of field report received by him and

after spot verification.

02.

The non-applicant filed objections to the application stating therein

that the revenue record with regard to mutation No.1424 of land bearing

Khasra No. 1101 of village Jagti had been fudged by Patwari Riaz Ahmed in

connivance with certain land grabbers and the land in question was the

subject matter of the sale deeds and also against the original entries in the

revenue record. The case has been registered at the Police Station concerned

Sr. No. 35

2

for

the

commission

of

offences

punishable

under

sections

447/467/468/420/120-B IPC, Section 3 of Public Property Damage Act,

Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3/4/25 Arms Act. The

applicant as Tehsildar and Riaz Ahmed, the then Patwari, Jagti were found

to have misused their official position and after receiving illegal monetary

consideration made illegal entry in the said mutation with regard to State

land. It was further asserted that co-accused Riaz Ahmed was admitted to

bail, as the charge sheet could not be produced before the competent Court

of law within the statutory period.

03.

This Court vide order dated 03.06.2020 had admitted applicant Rajesh

Kumar after hearing both sides, to interim bail in anticipation of his arrest,

and the interim order was extended from time to time.

04.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation of the

case has been completed and the chargesheet has also been laid before the

competent Court of law, as such, the applicant is neither required for

investigation nor for his custodial interrogation.

05.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not joined this issue and

submitted that the matter be left to be decided by the trial Court, as the case

is subjudice there.

06.

Since the investigating agency has already investigated the case,

concluded the same and laid the chargsheet and it has not been pointed out

that at any stage of the proceedings of this application, the applicant has, in

any manner, tried to influence the investigation or had not cooperated with

the investigation of the case.

07.

Having considered the matter in its entirety and after hearing the rival

submissions, this application for grant of bail is disposed of. The interim

3

order granting bail in anticipation of arrest in favour of the applicant is made

absolute with a further condition that he shall attend the trial Court, without

any fail, on each and every date of hearing. The application along with

interim application is thus, disposed of, as granted.

(MA CHOWDHARY)

JUDGE

Jammu