Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar Sharma, Etc. on 8 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
SC No.17/08
FIR NO.:44/08
PS:New Ashok Nagar
U/S:302/365/201/34 IPC
State Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma, etc.
ORDER
This order will dispose of an application dated nil for releasing accused Om Prakash on parole for a period of three months.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused Om Prakash and Ld. Additional P.P. for the State and perused file.
3. Parole of three months has been sought on the grounds that accused has been in jail for the last more than four years; his eldest girl is about 25 years; he has to find out a suitable bridegroom for his daughter and he has also to arrange finance for marriage of his daughter; and here is no other earning member in his family. It has been prayed that applicant/accused may be released on parole for three months.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that accused/applicant is facing trial of committing double murder; testimonies of most of SC No. 17/08 State vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page No. 1/3 the witnesses have been recorded and it would not be safe and proper to release the accused either on interim bail or parole at this stage. He prayed that application of accused/applicant may be dismissed.
5. On perusal of file, I find that bail application dated 16.11.2011 of accused Om Prakash was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2012.
6. My attention goes to a case Mansab Ali v. Irsan, (SC) 2003 A.I.R. (SC) 707 : 2003 Cri.L.J. 871, wherein the apex court observed:
"4. The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bails to accused pending trials or in appeals against convictions. Since the jurisdiction is discretionary it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In granting or refusing the bail, the courts are required to indicate, may be very briefly, the reasons for grant or refusal of bail. The jurisdiction has not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier fashion.***"
7. My attention also goes to a case Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad, (SC) , 2005 Cri.L.J. 4132 : 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 3530 the apex court observed:
"It is necessary for the Courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are :
1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge."SC No. 17/08 State vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page No. 2/3
8. On perusal of file, I find that out of 49 cited witnesses testimonies of 40 witnesses have already been recorded except PW37, whose cross examination is pending and to be recorded on 16.10.2012. Most of the eye witnesses have already been examined in the present case. This case has been fixed for 16.10.2012 for recording of remaining witnesses.
9. Keeping in view the reasons and discussion and the principles of law laid down in above mentioned cases, gravity of offence alleged against the accused/applicant, nature of testimonies recorded against him and further that case is at the verge of conclusion, it is not just, fair and appropriate to release the accused Om Prakash on parole at this stage. Therefore, his application for release on parole is dismissed. Announced in the Open Court on 08.10.2012 (DR. T. R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02,East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 17/08 State vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page No. 3/3