ABDUL GANI DAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-2020-9-25
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on September 08,2020

Abdul Gani Dar Appellant
VERSUS
Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURBAKSH SINGHSIBBIA SARBAJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners had a proprietary land situated at Humhama but one person, namely, Nazir Mirza, a Prosecuting Officer, has been claiming to have purchased some portion of the said land from one of the brothers of the petitioners. It is further averred that said Mr. Nazir Mirza, with the aid and assistance of police, started raising construction on the land in question without permission of the petitioners compelling the petitioners to file a complaint before the Municipal Authorities. As a consequence of this, the construction was demolished by the Municipal Authorities.
(2.)It is further averred in the petition that Mr. Nazir Mirza, having influence in the Police Department, started harassing the petitioners and filed a false complaint with the police against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, vide order dated 04.07.2020 granted interim bail to the petitioners but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 23.07.2020 on the ground that as on the date of filing of the application, no FIR had been registered by the police against the petitioners.
(3.)It is contended that the complaint, on the basis of which FIR No.263/2020 for offence under Section 447, 427 and 379 IPC has been registered against the petitioners, is false and frivolous being a consequence of vengeance on the part of complainant who is attributing demolition of his house to the petitioners. Copy of the FIR has been annexed with the petition. 3. The respondents have opposed the bail application by filing reply thereto. In their reply, it has been contended by the respondents that the allegations in the FIR against the petitioners are serious in nature, inasmuch as it is alleged in the FIR that the plinth of the boundary wall of the plot of land belonging to the complainant was dismantled by the petitioners and they have also stolen some iron lying over there. It is also contended that the petitioners, by suppression of the fact that FIR had not been registered against them at the time when they had obtained interim bail from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, have misled the Court, as a result of which learned Sessions Judge declined to grant any relief to the petitioners.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.