SHAKUNTLA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1999-7-9
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on July 01,1999

SHAKUNTLA KUMARI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS petition of revision has been filed by the widow of the deceased Bishamber Nath who was assaulted by the accused -respondent herein on 30/08/1995 in village Dharamsal, Tehsil Kalakote, Rajouri. Initially a case under section 307/382/341 R. P. C. was registered in police station Kalakote. But as the deceased succumbed to the injuries, therefore the accused was charged under section 302/392/341 R. P. C. As per the facts of the case the accused accosted the deceased demanding return of the money borrowed by him. Since he refused to part with the money borrowed by him. Since he refused to part with he money the accused nabbed him down and inflicted blows on his neck as a result/of which the deceased suffered fractures in C -6 and C -7 Vertabrae. As per the post -mortem finding injures Cervical Spinal Column at C -6, 7 level. While the occurrence took place on 30.08.1995 the deceased succembed to the injuries on 05.09.1995 in the Medical College Hospital Jammu. By order dated 15.11.1995 the accused was charged under section 302/392 R. P. C. During the trial statements of 16 out of a total of 24 witnesses have been recorded. The evidence relied by the prosecution includes the statement of the deceased recorded on 30.08.1995 which infact is the First Information Report. It appears while the prosecution evidence was still to be concluded, the respondent applied for grant of bail.
(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 17.12.1997 allowed the application by admitting the accused to bail. The widow of the deceased whose statement as prosecution witness was recorded on 27.05.1997 has questioned the propriety and legality of the order granting bail to the accused at a time when statements of all but three prosecution witnesses remained to be recorded.
(3.) MR . Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the learned Sessions Judge has exhibited undue haste in granting bail to the accused at a stage when the trial was nearing conclusion as only 3 or 4 witnesses remained to be examined. They are either police officer or Dr. Inayat Ullah Shah who had conducted the postmortem. He also argued that learned Sessions Judge has already expressed his opinion on the merits of the case while granting the bail which will seriously prejudice the prosecution at the final stage. Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however argued that the trial court having exercised discretion in granting bail no case is made out for cancellation of the bail because statements of all the material witnesses stand recorded and there is no chance of the accused tampering with the evidence. There is also no allegation that he has in any manner violated the terms on which the bail was granted.;


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