- (1.)Through the currency of this petition, Sanjay Sharma, accused, facing trial for the commission of offence, contrary to Section 302 read with Sections 34, RRP and 5/23 Arms Act, along with other accused, pending at the stage of recording prosecution evidence, has sought to be admitted to bail inter alia on the ground that he is in custody for more than eight years, having been arrested in Oct. 1994. That out of a list of 23 witnesses given by the prosecution in the challan, five are shown as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution has examined only 11 witnesses out of the panel of witnesses in the challan till date, enumerable opportunities afforded by the Court. It is further contended that mother of the petitioner, who happens to be a widow, has been advised open heart surgery for replacement of mitral valve in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, to which she has been referred to by Dr. C.D. Gupta. That there is nobody to look after his mother and arrange money for treatment outside the State. It is also submitted that earlier application initiated by the petitioner for grant of bail before Sessions Judge, Jammu, did not merit acceptance and stood dismissed on 20- 4-2001. That the case, is proceeding at a slow pace and, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in incarceration of further period without adjudication being finalised. Further contention of the petitioner is that the constitutional right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial is denied and, thus, entitles him to be released on bail.
(2.)In controverting the submissions of the petitioner, detailed objections have been filed by the State in stating that the offences, in which the accused are facing trial, are punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life. Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly bars the grant of bail in, such offences by the Court in ex- ercise of its discretion unless the case is covered squarely by the exceptions provided in proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is also stated that the grounds taken by the petitioner for admitting him to bail in this petition were also urged before the Sessions Judge in bail application, which stood rejected vide order dated 24-4-2001. Lastly, it is submitted that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie make out a case against the petitioner of his involvement in the commission of offence with which he stands charged and, thus, disentitles him to a concession of bail.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and so perused the report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, meticulously.