Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Manzoor Ahmed Mir vs Ut Of J&K on 24 November, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No. 230
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Bail App 91/2020
Manzoor Ahmed Mir .....petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Jagpaal Singh Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Aijaz Lone Dy.AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1 Through the medium of instant application, the petitioner has sought interim bail in the criminal challan titled 'State vs. Manzoor Ahmed Mir' for offences under Sections 8/20/25/29 of NDPS Act, which is pending disposal before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') 2 It is the case of the petitioner that he is facing trial in a police challan for the aforesaid offences and is behind bars since 2018. It is further averred that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from Cholelithiasis i.e. Gallstone and the Doctors have advised surgery of its treatment. It is further averred that all the children of the petitioner are minor and there is no other male member in his family to look after his ailing wife. According to the petitioner, it is he only, who has to make arrangements for surgery of his ailing wife. It is also averred that the petitioner had approached the Court of learned 2 Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, but his application for grant of interim bail was rejected by the learned trial Court on 23.05.2020. 3 The respondent has resisted the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence, inasmuch as the commercial quantity of contraband/narcotics has been recovered from his possession. It is further contended that the order, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner by the learned trial Court, is well reasoned. It has also been contended that the surgery of the wife of petitioner cannot be a ground for grant of interim bail in his favour, particularly in a case where the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence under NDPS Act.
4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
5 As per the prosecution case, 26 kgs and 500 gms of charas was recovered from the petitioner on 11.11.2018. Accordingly, the police registered FIR and after investigation of the case, presented the challan for offences under Sections 8/20/25/29 of NDPS Act before the learned trial Court on 06.05.2019. 6 It appears that the petitioner had approached the learned trial Court for grant of interim bail on the ground that his wife had to undergo surgery, but the same did not find favour with the learned trial Court and the application was rejected vide order dated 23.05.2020. 7 A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reveals that the interim bail to the petitioner has been denied primarily on the ground that he is involved in a heinous offence and that if he is enlarged on bail, it will have an adverse impact on the public interest.
8 In the instant case, the petitioner is not seeking bail on merits, but he is seeking bail on the ground that his wife has to undergo surgery for 3 removal of Gallstone and for this purpose, he needs to be by her side so that all the arrangements regarding surgery of his wife are put in place, particularly because there is no other male member in his family who can take up this responsibility. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of OPD ticket issued by the District Hospital, Handwara. From a perusal of the same, it is revealed that earlier the date of surgery of wife of the petitioner was fixed on 02.06.2020, but since the surgery could not take place on that date, new date of surgery has been fixed on 29.11.2020.
9 The respondent has not brought on record anything to dispute this document. It has also not denied the assertion of the petitioner that his wife has to undergo surgery for removal of Gallstone . The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments is that in case the petitioner is enlarged on interim bail, he may abscond and may not remain available to face the trial before the trial Court. 10 So far as the apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would flee from justice is concerned, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same and even otherwise the appearance of petitioner before the trial Court upon expiry of period of interim bail can be ensured by imposing appropriate conditions in this regard. . 11 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's wife is suffering from Gallstone and she has to undergo surgery on 29.11.2020 coupled with the fact that there is no other male member in the family of the petitioner to make arrangements for the surgery of his wife, a case for grant of interim bail to the petitioner is made out.
4
12 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be enlarged on interim bail for a period of 15 days w.e.f 25.11.2020 subject to the following conditions:
(i) That he shall furnish a bail bond with one local surety in the amount of Rs.1.00 lac to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court;
(ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the limits of UT of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the learned trial Court;
(iii) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses; and that
(iv) That the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail on 10.12.2020 and the In-charge of the said Jail shall send an intimation in this regard to the trial Court.
(v) That in case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with the law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 24.11.2020 Sanjeev Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable:Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR UPPAL 2020.11.25 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document