Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Respondent(S) on 24 November, 2022
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Sr. No.183
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 24.11.2022
Bail App No. 88/2022
CrlM Nos. 317/2022 & 430/2022
in
Bail App No. 115/2022
CrlM No. 480/2022
Rohit Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate.
Vs
..... Respondent(s)
UT of J&K
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy.A.G.
Mr. Nitin Parihar, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The order shall dispose of two bail applications filed by applicants-accused Rohit Kumar and Abhi Kumar booked in FIR No. 59/2021 registered with Police Station, Ramgarh and in which the challan stands presented against the applicants-accused and others in offences under Sections 307/395/364- A/326/323/511/147/201 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. It is suffice to mention that except for one accused all other accused mentioned in the challan stand 2 Bail App Nos. 88/2022 & 115/2022 arrested and are facing trial.
2. The objections to the applications have been filed.
3. The application has been filed on behalf of one of the alleged victims for intervention in the bail application. The applicant has been granted liberty to address in the matter as an intervener.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicants-accused have submitted that as the challan stands presented in the court of law on the completion of the investigation, the custody of the accused is not required. The accused are in incarceration for about an year and, therefore, the bail should not be denied to them. It is also argued that the trial may take some time for completion and in the light of the same to keep the accused in custody for any longer shall be travesty of justice.
5. Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy.A.G has argued that the accused are facing trial in very heinous offences and the grant of bail at this stage can influence the outcome of the trial pending against the accused. The manner in which the occurrence has taken place does not qualify the accused for bail.
6. Mr. Nitin Parihar, Advocate representing one of the victims has also submitted that the injuries received by the victims and the manner in which the accused have carried out the crime speak volumes of the gravity of the offence. The grant of bail shall jeopardize the lives of the victims and their families.
7. The scanned record of the trial court is before the court. The occurrence which allegedly took place on 09.08.2021 in the evening hours in the shop of Madan Lal finally culminated into the presentation of challan against the accused-applicants, Sukhdev Choudhary, Pawan Kumar and one more 3 Bail App Nos. 88/2022 & 115/2022 person for the offences of which the mention is made above. The accused are alleged to have visited the shop of Madan Lal at about 8.30 P.M. and were armed with sharp edged weapons. The accused are alleged to have attacked Mohinder Paul and his brother Manish Pal with the sharp edged weapons and caused grievous injuries to Manish Pal which resulted into amputation of his left hand and other injuries on his body. Mohinder Paul also received grievous injuries. The matter did not end here as the accused are also alleged to have tried to kidnap the minor son of Mohinder Paul but the attempt was foiled. The accused are also alleged to have decamped with the money and other articles which were lying in the bag belonging to the victims. During investigation the sharp edged weapons used in the occurrence have been recovered on the disclosure of the accused persons and some amount and other articles including laptop stand recovered on the alleged disclosure statement of accused Abhi Kumar.
8. The bail applications earlier filed by the applicants herein stand dismissed by the Courts below.
9. Learned counsels appearing for the accused submits that the charges have not been framed so far against the accused persons.
10. The manner in which the accused persons are alleged to have carried out their act is indeed frightening one. Not only the accused came with an intention to attack the victims and cause injuries to the victims as is made out from the weapons like 'Toka' and 'Khokri' they carried with them, which resulted into even amputation of left arm of Manish Pal, they even tried to kidnap the minor child of Mohinder Paul who was also present on spot. Of course, the accused are also alleged to have looted money and other articles 4 Bail App Nos. 88/2022 & 115/2022 from the complainant party. The occurrence itself speaks of the seriousness of the crime and need no further elaboration. No doubt grant of bail and not jail is accepted principle but the same is not an absolute rule and has to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The submission made on behalf of the accused persons that as the challan stands presented in the court of law and therefore they are not required to be kept in custody and should be bailed out cannot be accepted at this stage of the case. It is always the overall facts and circumstances which lead to the grant or refusal of bail. It is very convenient for the accused persons to advance such aforementioned plea but the court in the present case is not inclined to accept such contention. The mere presentation of challan cannot be the only reason to grant bail to the accused persons. The release of the accused persons at this stage can definitely instill fear in the minds of the victims and impact the trial. The statements of the victims are yet to be recorded.
11. The learned counsels have relied upon the judgments cited as 2021 (10) SCC 773 titled 'Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another' & 2021 0 Supreme (Del) 583 titled 'Rohit Sharma vs. State NCT of Delhi' in support of their contentions. The Hon'ble Apex Court granted bail in the aforesaid cases keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Each case is required to be decided on its own merits.
12. Last but not the least, the learned counsel appearing in bail application filed by Abhi Kumar has argued in vain that the complaint filed by Sat Pal S/o Hans Raj, uncle of victims, is vague one bereft of details and does not even mention the name of any accused person. To say the least, it is not that in every case where the name of accused does not figure initially in the 5 Bail App Nos. 88/2022 & 115/2022 complaint the accused can be held entitled to bail on the said ground.
13. The Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not convinced that as of now the rule of bail and not jail can be safely applied in the case in hand. No good ground is made out to grant bail to the applicants-accused at this stage of the case.
14. The bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
15. Copy of the order be placed in both the files.
(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu 24.11.2022 Pawan Chopra Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA 2022.11.25 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document