AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J
This application in terms of Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner in case FIR No.12 of 2019 P/S Imam Sahib, Shopian under Section 447, 323, 307 read with Section 34 RPC.
Petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR aforesaid alongwith co-accused namely Gh. Mohammad Dar and so far as the co-accused is concerned he came to be arrested on 9th April, 2019 and was subsequently released on interim bail by the court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Shopian vide its order dated 24.04.2019. The petitioner claims that he is a senior citizen aged 61 years and has not committed any offence. He submits that an application for anticipatory bail was preferred by him before the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shopian but the same was rejected by the court in terms of order dated 26.04.2019. The petitioner, in nutshell, seeks anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR and that the role attributed to him is only peripheral, whereas, the accused who has allegedly caused grievous hurt to the son of the complainant has already been enlarged on bail.
On being put on notice, the respondents have filed the objections on behalf of the SHO Police Station Imam Sahib, Shopian in which the respondents have inter alia pleaded that on 07.04.2019 the Police Station Imam Sahib, Shopian received written complaint from Mohammad Yousuf Wani ,wherein, it was alleged that his son namely Mukhtar Ahmad Wani had been attacked by the petitioner and the co-accused Gh. Mohammad Dar with sticks and iron rods with intention to kill him. It was further alleged that owing to serious injuries received by his son on his head, he had been shifted to hospital for medical treatment.
On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered under Section under Section 307, 447, 323 read with Section 34 RPC and the investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation and going by the medical opinion, the offence under Section 323 was dropped and instead Section 325 was incorporated in the FIR. The investigation conducted revealed that the petitioner alongwith Gh. Mohammad Dar are involved in the commission of offence under Section 307, 325,447 read with Section 34 RPC. It is clearly pointed out in the status report that it was the petitioner who caught hold of the injured and the co-accused Gh. Mohammad Dar inflicted grievous injuries on his head. It is on the basis on this material the respondents opposed the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has no case for grant of anticipatory bail. The police, on investigation, has found the petitioner alongwith Gh. Mohammad Dar involved in the commission of offence under Section 307, 325, 447 read with Section 34 RPC. The specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. It is the petitioner who caught hold of the injured Mukhtar Ahmad Wani where upon the co-accused Gh. Mohammad Dar inflicted serious blows on his head. It is true that Gh. Mohammad Dar who had inflicted grievous injuries was arrested and lateron let off on interim bail by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate but that by itself does not entitle the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail as a matter of course. As a matter of fact, the petitioner instead of surrendering before the police like his co-accused did, approached the court of Sessions Judge Shopian for grant of anticipatory bail. The Pr. Sessions Judge, Shopian has, by elaborate judgment, rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner. I see no reason or justification to differ with the view taken by the Principal Sessions Judge. The petitioner is the absconder from law and being so cannot claim the concession of bail in anticipation of his arrest. He may surrender before the police or before the Magistrate concerned and apply for the regular bail. The petitioner, however, is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail as no case has been made therefor.
For the afore giving reasons, I find no merit in this application and same is, accordingly, rejected. Whatever is said hereinabove, is only for disposal of this application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file the regular bail plea before the competent court of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.