SHAKUNTLA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full 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
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.