S.Rangeel Singh and Others vs State of J & K

The petitioners have presented this petition seeking to admit them to bail for offences under sections 307/326/34 RPC read with section 4/25

Arms Act. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 41/2001 lodged with Police Station Kathua stating therein that on 22.02.2001 Baljit

Singh and Raja actuated with common intention and in pursuance of long drawn enemity attacked Kamaljit Singh with intention to liquidate him and

inflicted serious injuries on his person besides cutting his arm. The victim was shifted to Hospital for treatment. His statement was recorded wherein

he has involved other accused also as attackers. The petitioners were arrested by the police on 04.03.2C001, 01.03.2001, 26.02.2001 and

10.03.2001 respectively. The petitioners are in judicial custody since then. They moved and application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Kathua which was rejected on 16.03.2001. Similarly the application filed before the Sessions Judge, Kathua has been rejected vide his order

dated 01.05.2001 mainly on the ground that the injured is still in the Hospital.

The petitioners have approached this court for grant of bail on the grounds that they are innocent and were never involved in the alleged

commission of offence and that in the police challan also no injury with the sharp edged weapon has been attributed towards the petitioners. The

grounds on which the learned sessions Judge has rejected the bail are not sustainable as the petitioners are not absconding or tempering with any

evidence as the challan has already been produced before the court. To keep the petitioners in custody shall amount to suffer the imprisonment

without recording conviction and sentence. The petitioners have also pleaded that they will remain present before the trial court to face the trial.

Respondents have filed objections stating there in that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not suffering from any illegality, therefore, does

not deserve interference and that there is no valid ground for the petitioners to approach this court, once their application has already been

disposed of by the trial court, to reagitate the matter before this court. No other ground has been taken in the objections resisting the grant of bail.

However, in the court, photo copy of the certificate issued by the Dy. Medical Superintendent, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhina

was filed by the counsel for the respondent to make out that injured is not yet fit to do normal physical activity and still require physiotherapy for

four months. It is also submitted that the injured is still in the Hospital which could be made out from any evidence.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submission is that the petitioners are innocent and law abiding citizens. Petitioner No. 1 is a teacher by

profession and is running his school. He enjoys good reputation for his social background. He is of 70 years age and suffering heart ailment. He

during his custody was admitted in District Hospital, Kathua and because of aggravated condition and ailment he has been shifted to Jammu

Hospital for his treatment. Petitioner No. 2 Yashpal Singh is of 50 years and enjoys god reputation. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioners' names have been added by the injured in his statement recorded u/s 161 cr.p.c. Whereas in the FIR names of only Baljit Singh and

Raja accused have been recorded and therefore, the involvement of the petitioners is an after thought. This aspect cannot be completely brushed

aside. It is also stated that because of the custody of petitioner No. 1, the functioning of the school run by him is badly hampering which is telling

upon the education of the children enrolled in his school.

The prosecution has presented the challan. The accusedpetitioners are requested to present before the court to face the trial. Injury caused to

the injured is not doubt previous, but not on the vital part of his body. It is not made out that the injured is in the Hospital. The learned counsel for

the petitioners has submitted that the injured has been discharged from the Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement after

the court equerry with regard to the grant of concession of bail to petitioners No. 3 and 4 that she does not press this application at this stage so

far as petitioners No. 3 and 4 are this stage so far as petitioners No. 3 and 4 are concerned, but seeks liberty to move the application before the

trial court at an appropriate time.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Bansi Lal Vs. State of Haryana 1978 Cr.L.J. 472 wherein it has been held that:

According to S.437 different considerations come into play when any person is caused of a nonbailable offence and there appear reasonable

grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Regarding all other offences the matter

has been left to the discretion of the Court concerned, and the e is no dearth of decisions by this court or by the various other high courts showing

that bail should not be refused as a matter of punishment, and that a person accused of an offence however heinous, has to be considered as

innocent till he is proved to be guilty.

In Bhagirathsinh Judeja vs. State of Gjurat AIR 1984 SC 372 the Supreme Court while dealing with the grant of ball has held that:

And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now wellsettled by an act of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to

be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would

be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tempering with evidence. The order made

by the High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider in the interest of

justice a compelling necessity to interface with the order made by the High Court.

We according allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the learned High Court Judge and restore the one made by the learned

Sessions Judge with following modifications:

(i) The appellant shall be released or if he is on bail continue to be on bail on his furnishing two fresh bail bonds each in the amount of Rs. 5000/

supported by a solvent security....

In view of the totality of the circumstances of this case the petitionersaccused No. 1 and 2 are in custody since 04.03.2001 for over a period of

nine weeks. The prosecution has also filed challan. Petitioner1 is also suffering from heart ailment. They are also aged persons. Therefore, S.

Rangeel Singh and S. Yashpal Singh petitioners No. 1 and 2 are admitted to bail. They shall furnish surety bounds in the sum of Rs. 20000/ each

to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this court and the personal bonds of the like amount, in default whereof they shall remain in Judicial

custody. The petitioners shall be bound by the condition that they will not leave the State or visit any part of Kashmir valley without the prior

permission of the trial court. The application is disposed of accordingly.