Amrit Pal Singh vs The Charge Sheet Stands Presented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 183 j&K

                                                                 Suppl-3 List
                                                                 Sr. No. 265
            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                        AT JAMMU
                                   Pronounced on : 24.02.2021

                                                  Bail App No.223/2020
                                                  CrlM No. 1347/2020



Amrit Pal Singh                                            ......Applicant

                       Through :- Mr. K.S.Johal, Sr. Advocate with
                                  Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate.

                                      v/s

Union Territory of J&K and another                       ......Non-applicants

                       Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.

Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
::: :                                 ORDER

CrlM No. 1347/2020 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The

needful be done within three weeks from today.

Disposed of accordingly.

Bail App No. 223/2020 :

1. The charge sheet stands presented against the applicant-accused Amrit

Pal Singh for commission of offence under Sections 302/380/454 IPC

in FIR No. 21/2020 registered with Police Station, Janipur, Jammu for

an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 05.03.2020 in

the house of the victim Surinder Singh situate at Mandlik Nagar,

Phase I, Paloura, Jammu.

2. The application is filed for grant of bail on the ground that a false case

has been set up against the accused which is solely based upon

circumstantial evidence. There is no circumstance which speaks of the

involvement of the applicant in the alleged commission of offence. The

application filed for grant of bail before the learned trial court has been

rejected vide order dated 23.09.2020. Of course, the plea of Covid-19

pandemic has also been taken by the applicant for bail in the

application.

3. The objections to the application have been filed wherein the

application is opposed on the ground that the accused is involved in

gruesome act and cannot be granted bail. The investigation has

established the aforesaid offences against the applicant-accused.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The scanned record of the case is

before the court.

5. Mr. K. S. Johal, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the

applicant, has strenuously argued that no case whatsoever is made out

against the accused. The argument of the counsel is that there is no eye

witness of the occurrence and the case is based upon the circumstantial

evidence. Recovery of certain articles on the alleged disclosure

statement made by the accused Amrit Pal Singh, the theft alleged to

have been committed by the accused, medical report stating death of

the victim because of asphyxia sustained in manual strangulation and

the time recorded in the postmortem report regarding of death of the

victim do not connect the accused with the commission of offence.

Further, the injury received by the victim as per medical report is not

grievous in nature which shows that at the most some scuffle can be

said to have taken place between the victim and the accused and

nothing more.

6. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the points

raised on behalf of the accused cannot be finally considered and

commented upon in the bail application as the same are matter of trial.

The court is not required to thrash the evidence that has been gathered

during the course of investigation by the police as it is for the trial

court to appreciate the same. The accused is involved in a heinous

offence and cannot claim the bail as a matter of right. The application

requires outright dismissal at this stage.

7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that it is stated before the court that

the arguments on the charge/discharge could not be addressed due to

one reason or another till date. This court will not assume the

jurisdiction of the trial court on the aspect of the charges that may or

may not be framed against the accused in the challan filed against him.

The court is to deal with the situation where the challan has only been

presented against the accused under Sections 302/380/454 IPC in the

aforesaid challan. The court has been called upon to assess and

appreciate the different angles of the prosecution case set up against

the accused as is evident from the arguments that have been raised on

behalf of the accused. The court is not to record any sort of finding on

the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused

which are based on the factual as well as legal aspects of the case. The

learned Senior counsel has laid much stress on the disclosure statement

allegedly made by the accused and the discovery made of ornaments in

pursuance to the same in order to show that except for this evidence

which itself does not connect the accused with the commission of

offence, there is no evidence on record which links the accused with

the alleged commission of offence. The court cannot record any

observation on this aspect of the case as the other circumstances that

appear in the case also are part of the case set up by the police against

the applicant. The court cannot appreciate the evidence that has been

collected by the prosecution against the accused while deciding the bail

application. It is suffice to mention here that after going through the

challan it cannot be said that the present case is of no evidence against

the accused only for the reason that there is no eye witness of the

occurrence as per the challan nor can it be finally said that the

circumstantial evidence through which the prosecution intends to prove

its case against the accused can have no bearing whatsoever on the

culpability of the accused. The court is not to anticipate the evidence

that is to come on record on behalf of the prosecution.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention, has

placed reliance on AIR 1960 SC 1125, AIR 1971 SC 2016 and AIR

2007 SC 1356. There can be no quarrel with what has been observed

and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments. However, the

same cannot be of any help to the applicant-accused at this stage.

9. The gravity of offence, evidence gathered by the police agency and the

stage of the case do not entitle the applicant to bail in the present

application.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has also urged before the court

that as the trial could not proceed due to COVID-19 pandemic and the

challan is pending disposal for the last more than eight months the

applicant should be bailed out. The extraordinary situation happening

due to pandemic cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused in the

case which is otherwise at its initial stage. The court is not convinced

with this argument of the applicant so as to grant bail to the accused.

11. The court finds no good ground to grant the prayer made in the

application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Any expression used in

the disposal of the present application shall have no bearing on the

trial.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu:

           24.02.2021
           Pawan Chopra

                                        Whether the order is speaking:     Yes/No
                                        Whether the order is reportable:   Yes/No




PAWAN CHOPRA
2021.02.24 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document