Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Harmeet Singh vs Union Territory Of J & K & Anr on 30 March, 2022
Sr. No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 6/2022
Reserved on: 17.03.2022
Pronounced on: 30.03.2022
Harmeet Singh .....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. P. N. Goja, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhinav Jamwal, Advocate
v/s
Union Territory of J & K & Anr. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy AG vice
Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
30.03.2022
1. Having been unsuccessful before the Trial Court in a petition for grant of bail, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking grant of bail pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in a case arising out of FIR No. 124/2013, registered at Police Station, Bishnah for the commission of offences punishable under sections 307, 341, 32, 34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act.
2. The petitioner has pleaded that on some false allegations leveled against him and three others a case had been registered and a charge sheet was filed in the Court without any notice to him before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah, who after proceeding u/s 512 Cr.P.C committed the challan to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu on 13.10.2016, however, petitioner came to be produced before the Court on 30.01.2020 after he came to be arrested by the police; 2 Bail App No. 6/2022 petitioner has further pleaded that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been granted bail on 10.10.2013, whereas accused No.4 being involved in some other case is in custody; that other accused had been charge sheeted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 29.04.2017 and statement of only one witness PW-9 Dr. Gara Ram has been recorded and no other witness for the last four years has been examined; the petitioner has further pleaded that on having been produced before the Court, he moved an application for grant of bail before the Trial Court on 30.01.2020 and after six months, his bail application was dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner may jump over the bail; that petitioner has not even been charge sheeted by the Trial Court till date; that another application was filed on 14.09.2020, which was dismissed on 08.10.2020 and his third application filed on 21.12.2020 also met the same fate on 05.01.2021 on the grounds that in view of no change in circumstances successive bail was not permissible; that without being charge sheeted and no evidence being led, the petitioner is in custody for the last two years and finally it has been prayed to exercise the discretion of grant of bail in favour of the petitioner as his father was a paralytic patent and suffering from diabetes, who has passed away on 08.01.2022.
3. Respondents filed objections to this petition that petitioner is a habitual offender against whom number of cases have already been registered at different police stations, as such, grant of bail to such offender would encourage him to re-indulge in similar activities; that in case he is admitted to bail there is every apprehension that he may tamper with prosecution evidence by threatening/pressurizing them, jump over the bail and abscond; that petitioner had already been proceeded U/S 512 Cr.P.C; 3 Bail App No. 6/2022 that petitioner who arrested in some other case was in custody had been produced from a jail and finally it was prayed that the application be rejected.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner had not prior information for the charge sheet in the case on hand was being laid against him in the Court of law, as such, he could not appear at the time of presentation of challan and that he had not been absconded so as to attract the provisions of Section 512 Cr.P.C. He has further argued that his two other co-accused who were the main accused in the case have already been granted bail and that in view of the fact that since framing of the charge against other accused, just one witness has been examined during investigation. He further submitted that without proper trial, accused is being subjected to preventive action by keeping him in custody and finally it was prayed to grant him bail.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently argued that the petitioner who is wanted in some criminal case of heinous nature and that on being granted bail in the case on hand, petitioner had jumped over the bail and have absconded with the result there was no option with the Court except to proceed against him in terms of Section 512 Cr.P.C. He further argued that in view of the serious offence of attempt to murder and the conduct of the petitioner especially when he has not been charge sheeted the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case titled "Anil Kumar Yadav vs State (NCT) of Delhi" reported as (2018) 12 SCC 129 has spelt out some of the significant considerations which may be placed in the balance in 4 Bail App No. 6/2022 deciding whether to grant bail. Para 17 of the judgment is profitable to be extracted for ready reference:-
"17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:- (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court."
8. It is settled law that presumption of innocence is the strongest factor in the criminal jurisprudence and no one can be presumed to be a culprit unless it is so established beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution during the trial. The bail is general rule and denial thereof is an exception, however, the bail has to be considered by striking a balance between individual's right of liberty and the general societal interests; the liberty of individual has to be ignored when there are societal interests which cannot be compromised.
9. Facts of the case FIR No. 124/2013 registered at Police Station, Bishnah are that accused Harmeet Singh along with other accused made an attempt to kill Sahil Sharma, who is an eye witness in a murder case and accused in that case is close to present accused persons who wanted to kill Sahil so that his deposition should not come before the court in the said case; that Sahil Sharma was on a evening walk along with Pankaj Sharma and Rakesh Kumar at Baba Road Deoli, accused-applicant along with other co-accused Raghubir Carrying Toka reached at the spot on Motor cycle No. PB074-5606 on 17.09.2013, which was being driven by accused Raghubir Singh while the accused-applicant was sitting with him carrying sword and a Desi Katta (weapons of offence); that when they reached 5 Bail App No. 6/2022 Devi Bridge, Sahil Sharma was there along with his other friends. Applicant-accused fired upon Sahil to kill him but it missed the target and hit Pankaj Kumar who got seriously injured. Accused fled away from the spot. After investigation, accused along with co-accused were finally charge sheeted for commission of offence under section 3/25 Arms Act. The charge sheet was finally filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bishnah from where it was committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 13.10.2016. The accused-applicant was already proceeded U/S 512 Cr.P.C; that the Court charged rest of the accused except the accused-applicant and trial is going on for the last four years; that some of the accused persons are playing tactics to delay the proceedings and so far only one witness has been examined. On 30.01.2020, applicant-accused had been produced from jail first time as he was arrested in some another case.
10. The offence of which accused has been charged by the police include an offence of attempt to murder which is punishable with sentence of imprisonment upto maximum of life imprisonment. The petitioner is thus involved in a very heinous offence of attempt to murder by using a firearms-Desi Katta.
11. Petitioner was stated to have been admitted to bail in this case during investigation, he, however, absconded and was proceeded against U/S 512 of J&K Cr.P.C (in pari materia to section 299 Cr.P.C). It is not that the petitioner had on his own appeared in the Court. The fact of the matter is that he was detained in some other case in the jail and was produced before the Trial Court in this case from jail. He is yet to be charge sheeted; the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no 6 Bail App No. 6/2022 evidence has been led in the case appears to be impressive, however, in view of the intervening Covid-19 Pandemic, there was no possibility of recording of the statements of the witnesses during trial, in view of the restrictions being followed by all the Courts as directed by the government and the High Court. Petitioner, as is revealed from the copy of the FIR was the main accused in the case, as he is alleged to have used an illegal fire arm to shoot the victim, therefore, not having been charge- sheeted and his past conduct of absconding and the other factors like nature of accusation, gravity of offences, severity of punishment and antecedents of accused, do not entitle him to be granted bail.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, petitioner, in my considered opinion, is not entitled to be granted bail, till he is charge-sheeted and the material witnesses are examined by the Trial Court. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, this petition for grant of bail moved by the petitioner, is found devoid of any merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Bail Petition is, thus, dismissed.
(M.A. Chowdhary) Judge JAMMU 30.03.2022 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes