news details |
|
|
| Accused involved in abetment to suicide denied bail | | | Et Report
Jammu, Feb 6 : In a petition filed by Kanta Devi & others seeking quashment and set aside the two identical orders of even date, 13/6/2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (3rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu, in File Nos. 123 & 124, whereby respondents Sansar Chand and Deep Mala respectively have been released on bail after their arrest in connection, the J&K High Court directed that bail granted to Sansar Chand stands cancelled.
Justice Janak Raj Kotwal after hearing Adv Vikram Sharma appearing for the petitioner whereas Adv SK Anand appearing for the respondents observed that impugned order dated 13.6.2013 granting bail to accused Sansar Chand is quashed and bail granted to him is cancelled. It also directed that trial court shall secure his presence by issuance of appropriate process and lodge him to judicial custody. "Cancellation of the bail by the accused booked in a case with FIR No. 46/2013 of Police Station, Janipur for commission offences under sections 306, 498-A/34 RPC, however, will not come in the way of considering his prayer for bail afresh at an appropriate time. Before passing this judgment, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal observed some of the questions call for explanation and determination on administrative side include why in the bail application of accused-Deep Mala, police report was prepared and signed by the MHC (Moharar Head Constable) instead Investigating Officer of the case? Why the Prosecutors in their objections to the bail applications did not point out pendency of the earlier bail application? Why the Duty Magistrate did not feel the necessity of calling separate report in the subsequent bail application moved on behalf of accused Sansar Chand and also did not feel the necessity of examining the CD File, given that the bail was sought in a serious offence under section 306 RPC, involving death of a person punishable with imprisonment which extends to 10 years ?; and Why the Duty Magistrate ignored consideration the copy of police report dated 29.05.2013 (supra) which would have shown the pendency of the earlier bail application? Court directed that a copy of this judgment be, therefore, placed before the Chief Justice for information on the administrative side. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
