Calcutta HC: In Framing Arbitration Agreement Words Used Must be Certain, Definite  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Evaluate Performance of Employee When on Sanctioned Leave During Covid  ||  Kerala HC: Public Paying Toll Fees Casts Responsibility on NHAI to Ensure Smooth Traffic  ||  Calc. HC: Writ Court Rejecting Claims Over Disputed Issues Doesn’t Bar Arbitration if Clause Exists  ||  Gujarat HC Notifies Revised SOP for Virtual/Hybrid Hearing of Cases  ||  Kerala HC: Mere Assessment of Mental Illness by Referring to Mental Health Board Won’t Serve Purpose  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Validity of 7th proviso inserted in S. 2(b) of Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act  ||  SC to Suspend Operation of Committee Under UP Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025  ||  SC Recalls Direction to Remove Allahabad HC Judge from Criminal Jurisdiction after CJI’s Request  ||  Supreme Court: Enforcement Directorate Cannot Act Like a "Crook"    

Sunny Choudhary Vs. State of J & K - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (23 Aug 2021)

Courts should refrain from appreciating the evidence, while considering the bail application

MANU/JK/0545/2021

Criminal

The Petitioner has filed the present bail application seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 460, 148 149, 427, 120-B and 109 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act pending before the trial Court.

The Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences under section 302, 109 and 120-B of RPC and there is specific bar with regard to the grant of bail for offence under Section 302 of RPC. At this stage, from the perusal of the statements of the witnesses, no definite opinion can be formed that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that, the Petitioner is not guilty of alleged offences. No doubt that the Petitioner is facing trial for the last seven years but it is also fact that, he is facing trial for commission of heinous offence of murder.

The law is well settled that, the Court should refrain from appreciating the evidence, while considering the bail application. There are serious allegations against the petitioner of hatching a conspiracy for committing murder and arranging the killers in pursuance of the said conspiracy. At this stage, it cannot be determined that the allegations are either false or not true as number of other witnesses are yet to be examined and there is every chance that if the Petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses as the Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment to life.

With regard to delay in the conclusion of trial is concerned, perusal of record shows that, the trial Court has conducted the effective proceedings and even to secure the presence of the complainant-PW-1, trial Court has resorted to even coercive process. It requires to be noted that, for the last two years, the Courts have been functioning in restricted mode and some delay has caused due to Covid-19 pandemic in conducting the trial of the case. The present bail application is found to be misconceived. Application dismissed.

Tags : BAIL   PROCEEDINGS   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved