HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. -
(1.) THIS revision is filed by the complainant against the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Kathua on 18th May, 1998. By means
of this order respondents No.1 to 4 were admitted to interim bail by the
court below during pendency of the trial before it.
(2.) WITH a view to properly understand and appreciate respective submissions urged during the course of hearing few facts need to be
noted. Respondents are facing trial under sections 302, 341 read with
section 34 RPC. This case is pending trial in the court of learned
Session Judge, Kathua. Parties were not at variance with respondents No.1
to 3 were committed on 30/3/94, whereas against respondent No.4 Ghami
proceedings under section 512 Cr. P. C. were initiated. Respondents No.1
to 3 were charge sheeted on 4/7/94 under section 302 read with sections
34/341 RPC and case was fixed for prosecution evidence from 21 / 9/94 to 24/9/94. It appears that on 23/9/94 respondent No.4 was produced. Thereafter on 28/9/94 he was also charge sheeted. Since this date case
has been going on for recording prosecution evidence.
(3.) IMPUGNED order further indicates that there are 20 witnesses named in the challan by the prosecution. Till passing of the order
granting bail on 18/5/98 11 witnesses had been examined. So much so even
brother of the deceased had not been examined till that date. In this
background it is clear that respondents No.1 to 3 were in judicial lock
up for about 4 years whereas respondents No.4 was in judicial lock up for
about 3 years. This is one aspect of the case. Other aspect of the case
is that whether any case for cancellation of bail has been made out or
not by the complainant especially when State has not filed any revision.
In this regard it may be worthwhile to notice that after the case has
been made out, court is not powerless to order cancellation of the bail
granted to the accused like respondents No. 1 to 4. Some of the
illustrative grounds are that: -
a) accused after having been admitted to bail are either threatening or terrorising prosecution witnesses from giving evidence in the court.
b) they are hampering progress of the prosecution case resulting in delay in the conclusion of the trial.
c) there is apprehension of either accused persons fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or committing criminal offence again. There is nothing that could be pointed out by Shri Gandhi learned counsel appearing for cancellation of the bail.
Rather the thrust of submission urged on behalf of the complainant was that evidence recorded clearly shows the involvement of
the respondents No.1 to 4 in the commission of offences for which they
had been charged. Though this position was seriously contested by Shri
Adarsh Sharma learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. He further urged
that trial of the case is being protracted by prosecution to ensure that
under the guise of pendency of the case, respondents No.1 to 4. He
further urged that trial of the case is being protracted by prosecution
to ensure that under the guise of pendency of the case, respondents No.1
to 4 should be made to languish in jail.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.