 Early Times Report
Jammu, June 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the bail plea of Harbinder Singh, an accused in the Udhampur murder case, holding that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is not an absolute rule and cannot be applied mechanically in serious offences like murder. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi dismissed the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking bail in FIR No. 118/2023 registered at Police Station Rehambal, District Udhampur, for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. The trial is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur.
The case relates to the alleged murder of Ravi Kumar at Hope Centre. According to the prosecution, on April 1, 2023, Police Station Rehambal received a telephonic message from the hospital regarding the suspicious death of Ravi Kumar, following which proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated. During enquiry, the body was shifted to the mortuary and post-mortem was conducted.
The prosecution alleged that during the inquest it surfaced that Shubam Angral, Sadiq and Gourav Kumar, with common criminal intention and over non-payment of Rs 1 lakh, killed the deceased. Thereafter, the inquest proceedings were converted into a murder case and FIR No. 118/2023 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered on May 8, 2023.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and seized one DVDR through the Naib Tehsildar, which was sent to CFSL Chandigarh. Accused Gourav Kumar was arrested on May 9, 2023, while Shubam Angral and Sadiq were arrested on May 10, 2023.
As per the prosecution, the arrested accused disclosed during questioning that petitioner Harbinder Singh had allegedly instructed them through a WhatsApp video call to beat Ravi Kumar and show him the video. It was further alleged that on the petitioner’s instructions, some cameras were switched off and the deceased was beaten from March 27 to March 30, 2023.
The prosecution further alleged that Harbinder Singh came to the centre on March 30, 2023 and assaulted Ravi Kumar. The deceased was allegedly beaten with a wooden stick and a thick plastic pipe, and the petitioner allegedly kicked him hard in the stomach, causing severe injuries. Weapons of offence were recovered on the basis of disclosure statements. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and three others on August 3, 2023, and charges under Section 302 IPC were framed on March 4, 2024.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate P.N. Raina with Advocate J.A. Hamal argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that out of 37 prosecution witnesses, 23 had already been examined and the evidence recorded so far did not connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
Opposing the bail plea, Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia submitted that the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime punishable with life imprisonment or death. He argued that the petitioner was a notorious criminal involved in several other cases and that around 14 to 15 prosecution witnesses were still to be examined.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Y v. State of Rajasthan, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, and the recent decision in Sheikh Mehmood v. UT of J&K, observing that bail jurisprudence requires balancing the rule of liberty with factors such as gravity of offence, nature of evidence, antecedents of the accused, possibility of influencing witnesses and danger of justice being thwarted.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed that though “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a cardinal principle, it is not absolute. The Court said the principle must be weighed against the facts of each case, especially where the charge is murder and material witnesses are yet to be examined.
The Court noted that 23 out of 37 witnesses had been examined, while 14 material witnesses were still to depose. It further observed that the petitioner himself pleaded that he was involved in nine other cases, out of which he had been acquitted in six, while three cases were still pending trial.
Rejecting the plea of delayed trial, the Court held that the trial had substantially progressed and the remaining witnesses were material witnesses whose statements were of paramount importance.
Keeping in view the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, stage of trial and antecedents of the petitioner, the High Court held that Harbinder Singh did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed as being devoid of merit. (JNF) |
