news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of accused involved in murder case | | Arrested after a decade | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Apr 1
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. JR Kotwal, in a murder case rejected the bail application of accused, who had absconded prior to filling of charge-sheet proceedings u/s 512 Cr PC initiated against him and after issuing general warrants the accused was arrested after 10 years.
The fact of the case that in dispute over a small piece of land the accused persons attacked Bua Ditta, his son Shiv Kumar (deceased) and daughter Shakti Devi on October, 1996 with a common intention of killing them. Accused Tirth Ram fired three shots from a pistol on Bua Ditta and Shiv Kumar which hit them on their legs whereas accused Bally Ram inflicted injuries with a 'Keie' on the head of Shiv Kumar who succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. A case u/s 302/307/34 RPC and charge-sheet against the accused was presented in the Court. The applicant Bally Ram, however, absconded prior to filling of charge-sheet. Accused Des Raj left for his heavenly abode during the trial, accused Tirth Ram was bailed out by Additional Sessions Judge Jammu on March 23, 1999.
On September 8, 2007, this Court framed charges u/s 302/307/34 RPC against accused/applicant. Accused applicant sought release on bail on the same ground on which bail has been granted to Tirth Ram. Public Prosecutor EA Tak strongly opposed the application of bail of the principal of parity and further submitted that accused who could manage to abscond for more than 10 years after the occurrence should not be released on bail.
While rejecting the bail application, Principal Sessions Judge, after hearing PP EA Tak appearing for the State and Adv RK Kotwal appearing for the applicant/accused, observed that in any case, after a bare perusal of record of the case, Court is of considered view that the principle of parity is not attracted in favour of applicant mainly because there is remarkable disparity between the position qua-accused Tirth Ram and accused-applicant. In this contest it is to be noted that accused/applicant absconded immediately after the occurrence and did not surface for about 10 years, his capability to escape arrest despite a general arrest warrant was issued against him disentitles him from release on bail because possibility of his jumping over cannot be ruled out and according to medical report the cause of death of deceased was the due to head-injury. According to the evidence on record it was accused/applicant, who had inflicted blows on the head of deceased Shiv-Kumar. With these observations Court rejected bail application. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
