news details |
|
|
| HC granted bail to accused arrayed by trial court | | | JAMMU, APRIL 23
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of J&K High Court, Jammu Wing, in a criminal revision against the order of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, granted bail to the accused arrayed by it in a murder case after six years.
In the criminal revision in which Sr. Adv M A Goni with Adv Bhat appeared for the accused Amarnath and Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the State, the question which was involved in this petition is whether Trial Court 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu was having powers, competence and jurisdiction to array the person as an accused against whom the charge-sheet has not been submitted by the prosecution?
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir, after quoting various Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgments, observed that it appears Amarnath figured in FIR but charge-sheet was not submitted against him for the reasons spelled out by the Investigating Officer whereas the other accused came to be charge-sheeted on July 4, 2002 after examining complainant Surjeet Singh, the application came to filed by the prosecution and impugned order came to be passed on March 6, 2007. The other witnesses are yet to be examined. Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court could have deferred consideration of the application till examination of Investigation Officer for the reasons that IO has spelled out reasons and details for not submitting the charge-sheet against Amarnath. Further he has also come to conclusion that there was no evidence against Amarnath. However, IO is yet to be examined and court deems it proper not to offer any more comments at this stage now. The fact of the matter is that Surjeet Singh has stated that deceased informed him that Amarnath caught hold the victim and Harmeet Singh stabbed him.
Justice Mir while allowing the petition further observed that Court is of the view that impugned order needs no interference. But question is whether petitioner is entitled to bail, allegedly the occurrence has taken place on March 31, 2001 and deceased has succumbed to the injuries in the intervening night of 1/2 April, 2001. The accused Amarnath was not arrested and there is no allegation that he has tried to abscond or tempered with the evidence or witnesses in any way and after a lapse of six years he came to be arrayed as an accused. But what is the offence for which he is to be charge-sheeted is yet to be examined by the trial court. What is the value of reasons spelled out by the IO in charge-sheet is yet to be determined and thrashed out by the Trial Court. Under these circumstances it will be travesty of justice to keep the accused in custody.
Mr. BS Salathia AAG during the arguments frankly conceded that accused be admitted to bail. The accused was accordingly admitted on bail after furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
