Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Devi Singh vs State And Others on 30 October, 2024
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 14.10.2024
Pronounced on. 30.10.2024
Bail App No. 381/2022
Devi Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate
Vs
State and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner figures as one of the accused in charge sheet titled, "State
vs. Kuldeep Singh and others" pending before the Court of learned 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short "the trial court") arising out
of FIR No. 45/2019 for commission of offences under Sections
302/109/147/341/342 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police
Station, Ramgarh.
2. It is stated that the applicant is an old aged, ailing and infirm person of
72 years of age suffering from high diabetes, asthma, allergy and acute
problem of both knees and both his sons are also in the judicial custody
in the same charge sheet and there is no male member in the family of
the applicant. His wife is also an old lady. The applicant was granted
interim bail by the trial court vide order dated 03.04.2020, which was
extended from time to time and in terms of the order of the trial court, the
applicant surrendered before the jail authorities. It is further stated that
initially the charge sheet was pending before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Samba, but was subsequently transferred to the court of
learned 2nd Add. Sessions Judge, Jammu.
3. The applicant had filed the bail application on 30.07.2022 before the
learned trial court and he was granted interim bail vide order dated
12.08.2022 in view of his health condition, as the applicant had prayed
for grant of bail on health grounds. Thereafter, the applicant filed another
application seeking extension of interim bail granted to the applicant on
12.08.2022 but the learned trail court vide its order dated 31.10.2022
dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the
present application for grant of bail on the health grounds and that he has
been falsely implicated in the case.
4. The respondent has filed the objections to the bail application, stating
therein that during the course of investigation, offences under Sections
302/341/342/109/147 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act stand proved against
Kuldeep Singh and Balbir Singh both sons of Devi Singh, whereas
offences under Sections 302/341/342/109/147 IPC stand proved against
the accused, namely, Sushant Singh, Kavita Devi Sunil Kumar, Devi
Singh, Subash Chander, Satpaul and Rakesh Kumar, all residents of
Chak Baglan Tehsil Vijaypur District Samba.
5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, health status report of the
applicant was also filed on 16.12.2023.
6. Mr. Jagpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the
petitioner is an old man of 75 years age and after filing of the charge
sheet till date only 4 witnesses have been examined. He has further
argued that taking into consideration the poor health condition of the
applicant, he was enlarged on bail on couple of occasions but the
applicant could not surrender for a week due to his ailment and the
failure of the applicant weighed with the trial court for the purpose of
rejection of his bail. He has further submitted that name of the applicant
was not mentioned in the FIR, and he was subsequently falsely
implicated in the commission of aforesaid offences and there is no
whisper in the charge sheet that the applicant participated in the
commission of offence under section 302 RPC. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment dated 03.07.2024 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court titled,
Keimat Lal vs. UT of J&K, bail App No. 393/2022.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has submitted that
during investigation, the involvement of applicant was also found in the
commission of offence under Section 302 RPC, as such, he is not entitled
to any concession of bail.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. The charge sheet in this case was filed on 02.10.2019 before the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba, which was committed to the court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Samba on the same date itself. Subsequently,
the charge sheet was transferred from the court of Principal Sessions
Judge, Samba to the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu by this
Court vide order dated 01.06.2021. The applicant was charged for
commission of offence under Sections 302/341/342 read with Section
149 RPC vide order dated 29.09.2021.
10. This is true that in the FIR, the name of the applicant has not been
mentioned but equally true is that the FIR is not an encyclopaedia. The
chargesheet reveals that during the investigation, it was found that
Kuldeep Singh and Balbir Singh both sons of Devi Singh, Sushant Singh
S/o Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Kavita Devi W/o Kuldeep Singh, Sunil Kumar
S/o Ravi Kumar waylaid Rahul Verma and Abhishek Verma and started
quarrelling with them. They took Rahul Verma inside the gate of house
of Kuldeep Singh. Abhishek Verma, somehow, managed to escape and
saved himself. All the five accused as mentioned above, started
assaulting Rahul Verma. On hearing hue and cry, number of people came
on spot. On the instigation of Subash Chander, Sat Pal and Rakesh
Kumar, Kuldeep Singh and Balbir Singh started assaulting Rahul Verma
with toka and kirch respectively. The applicant herein Devi Singh was
also present on spot. Rahul Verma fell on the ground and was drenched
in blood. All the accused persons who were instrumental in the
commission of offence fled from spot. Some people tried to take away
the injured for treatment, but the applicant did not permit the injured to
be lifted from spot. There is no allegation that the applicant assaulted the
deceased or exhorted Kuldeep Singh and Balbir Singh to kill the
deceased like other accused. The allegations in respect of assaulting the
deceased have been levelled against the two sons of applicant with Toka
and Kirch. It needs to be noted that the FIR was registered on 05.08.2019
and the applicant was arrested on 17.09.2019 as per the arrest memo.
11. The health status report submitted by the respondents reveals that the
applicant was sent to GMC time and again for treatment and even
remained admitted in Hospital from 04.09.2021 to 13.09.2021. At
present the applicant is about 75 years of age and as per the nominal roll
submitted by the Sr. Superintendent, Central Jail, he has been in custody
for the last 4 years 01 months and 02 days as on 02.11.2023, meaning
thereby that the applicant has been in custody for nearly five years as on
date. After perusal of the record, this Court finds that there are 27
witnesses in the charge sheet and till date only four witnesses have been
examined and one of the witnesses has expired. There are 22 more
witnesses to be examined. The applicant, who is an old and ailing man of
75 years age, is in custody for about five years and there is no likelihood
of completion of the trial in near future. More so, there is no allegation
against the applicant that while he remained on bail, he tried to influence
any of the prosecution witnesses.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed, and applicant is
released on bail on the following terms and conditions:
(i) subject to furnishing of two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs.
25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and
personal bond of the like amount.
(ii) he shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution
witnesses during bail either physically or through any other mode.
(iii) he shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of hearing
unless exempted by the learned trial court.
(iv) he shall not leave the territory of UT of Jammu and Kashmir
without prior permission of the learned trial court.
13. In the event, the applicant violates any condition imposed by this court as
mentioned above, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach the
learned trial court seeking cancellation of bail.
14. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
30.10.2024
Karam Chand/Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/no
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/no
