Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Rayees Ahmad Mir And Another vs State Of J&K And Others on 13 July, 2020
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Video Conference)
Reserved on : 06.07.2020
Pronounced on : 13.07.2020
IA No. 2/2018 in
CRA No. 9900004/2017
c/w
CRA No. 4/2017
CRREF No. 15/2017
Rayees Ahmad Mir and another
.....Applicant(s)
Through :- Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate
(on Video Conference from High Court at Srinagar)
V/s
State of J&K and others
.....Non-applicant(s)
Through :- Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG for UT of J&K
Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate for the
complainant
(on Video Conference from High Court at Srinagar)
2 IA No. 2/2018 in
CRA No. 9900004/2017
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
RAJNESH OSWAL J.
IA No. 2/2018
1. The present application has been filed by the applicants/appellants, namely, Rayees Ahmad Mir and Nazir Ahmad Mir for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that they have suffered ten years long imprisonment and this Court vide order dated 02.08.2018, permitted the applicants/appellants to lay a motion for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in the event the appeal is not heard on 22.11.2018, while rejecting the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed earlier.
2. The complainant has filed the objections and it is stated that applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been dismissed twice by this Court and as the applicants/appellants have been sentenced for life imprisonment for committing heinous offence of murder, therefore, they are not entitled to seek suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants argued that no offence under Section 302 RPC is made out and at the most offence under Section 304 (II) RPC is made out. Further that the applicants have already been in custody for the nearly 10 years and in view of the long incarceration, the applicants/appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. A.A.G and counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant 3 IA No. 2/2018 in CRA No. 9900004/2017 of bail on the grounds as mentioned in the objections filed by the complainant. They further argued that while considering bail application, the merits of the case cannot be considered and prayed for rejection of application.
5. In compliance to the order dated 10.05.2019, the Nominal Roll was submitted before this Court vide communication bearing No. CJS/MJ/CVT/ 2019/964 dated 20.05.2019. It reveals that both the applicants/ appellants have remained in custody for 8 years, 8 months and 19 days as on 20.05.2019. Even after that, more than one year has elapsed and as on date the appellants/applicants have remained in custody for nearly 9 years and 10 months.
6. It goes without saying that the appeal is continuation of trial and the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be denied.
7. The period of detention has always been the relevant factor while considering the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Apex Court in "Sandeep alias Raja Acharya Vs State of Orissa" reported in (2018)11 SCC 715.
8. Taking into consideration the duration of detention of the appellants/applicants i.e. nearly about 10 years and also taking into account the fact that there is no likelihood of appeal being considered on merits in immediate future due to Covid-19 Pandemic, as such, we deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellants/applicants and release the applicants/appellants on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond to the sum of Rs. 4 IA No. 2/2018 in CRA No. 9900004/2017
50,000/- each along with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this Court. We direct that the appellants/applicants shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of this Court. The appellants/applicants shall remain present before this Court on each and every date of hearing.
9. Application is disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
13.07.2020
Karam Chand/Secy
KARAM CHAND
2020.07.13 15:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document