news details |
|
|
| Interim bail to Jagar Singh | | |
ET REPORT
JAMMU, May 3: In murder case of Amandeep Singh son of EX-MLC & Advocate Deepinder Kour which took place on August 29, 2009 who died on August 30, 2009 at Delhi, Justice Sunil Hali in a bail application filed by Choudhary Nagar Singh and his two brothers namely Choudhary Jagar Singh and Rakesh Kumar, dismissed the bail application of Choudhary Nagar Singh and Choudhary Rakesh Singh and granted interim bail to Choudhary Jagar Singh for a period of three months.
In 31 pages judgment Justice Sunil Hali after hearing Sr. Adv MA Goni, Advocates RS Thakur, MA Bhat, Pankaj Jamwal, AH Bhat, AS Kotwal appeared for the petitioners whereas Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi and Deputy AG BR Chandan appeared for the state observed that there is no dispute that the petitioners are involved in an offence which carries a maximum punishment of ten years or life imprisonment. While dealing with an application for grant of bail, there should be reason to indicate in order for prima-facie concluding as why bail was granted where accused are charged of serious offence. Even in cases where it is prima-facie disclosed that accused are entitled to bail on basis of material collected by prosecution, even then, bail cannot be granted as a matter of course unless certain other aspects are taken care of. The purpose of not granting bail is to ensure presence of accused during trial and in not intimidating the course of investigation either by winning over witnesses or harassing the complainant party. The underlining principle is to ensure that the accused faces trial. The impelling circumstance which may compel accused to run away from trial is nature of offence and severity and punishment involved. It is in view of this principle that Section 497(1) CrPC, has been incorporated which provides that a person accused of an offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life is not entitled to bail. There is a statutory impediment in granting bail in such cases whereas, in all other offences except the one covered by the special act, the accused becomes entitled to bail.
Court further observed that fact remains that petitioners Nagar Singh and Rakesh Kumar, managed to influence then district chief of the police heading the earlier investigating agency as also other police officials in swapping the original weapon of offence as alleged by the prosecution. This conduct of the accused would be relevant for the purpose of judging their character at this stage for the purpose of grant of bail. And this, view, is not an ordinary event looking to its affect on the society at large and the growing feeling amongst the public at large that criminal justice system in country has literally failed. It also reflects amount of influence which petitioners carry to thwart investigation in the case. As revealed from the record produced by the prosecution, petitioners are dealing with business at a large scale. Their status in society as leading business-men is not disputed by petitioners also. The influence which has been used by them to swap the weapon of offence has wider ramifications on the course of trial. The said influence based upon their money power possessed by them cannot be ruled out. Court further observed that this conduct of the petitioners in this respect cannot be over-looked as character; behavior would mean the position and standing of the accused while considering their bail. At the same time, it would also be unsafe to keep the petitioners under lock up on these grounds for the whole trial. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of present case, it would be necessary to withhold their bail till eye witness Tejpal Singh is examined. He can be vulnerable as he is not related to the complainant party. Regarding two other eye witnesses i.e. mother and brother of the deceased, they cannot be expected to be influenced by the petitioners. However, these two witnesses can complain of intimidation or been threatened for which protection is required to be given to them by the prosecution as and when they approach the trial court and the same shall be provided to them unless not already provided. Regarding other witnesses who mostly are police officials, the plea of intimidation as raised by the respondent-State can be considered only if the petitioners are out on bail and not at this stage. The conduct of the accused in that eventuality can be a ground for canceling their bail.
Justice Sunil Hali further observed that the present bail application in so-far-as it relates to petitioners Nagar Singh and Rakesh Kumar is dismissed. The said petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to move a fresh application in this regard before the trial court after the recording of evidence of eye witness Tejpal Singh and if possible of other two eye witnesses if examined by the trial court in the same calendar prescribed by it. So far as petitioner Jaggar Singh is concerned, court finds no reason to withhold his bail. He is accordingly granted bail for a period of three months subject to his furnishing of cash security to the tune of Rs.1 lac with one surety of the like amount to satisfaction trial court. The said petitioner will furnish an undertaking before the trial court that he will not leave the jurisdiction of this court and will not influence the witnesses or intimidate the complainant party. The said petitioner shall also surrender his passport before the trial court. However, it is observed that in case the prosecution collects any material during the period petitioner is on bail, that he has influenced the witnesses or tried to intimidate the complainant, the prosecution would be well within its right to move an application for cancellation of the bail of the said petitioner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
