JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail. The Petitioner stands charged for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar, Nahan. Prior to filing of this present petition, the Petitioner approached this Court in an another petition being Cr. M.P. No. 1134 of 2010 praying for release on bail. That petition was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 8th October, 2010 holding that the evidence of the prosecution has been recorded and it would be open to the Petitioner to approach the trial Court again. Another petition for release on bail was filed by the Petitioner on 25.10.2010 before the learned trial court wherein detailed submissions have been made by the Petitioner herein. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who has seized of the matter, disposed of the petition holding that the evidence could not be analyzed in detail in the manner suggested to ascertain the involvement of the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, again the Petitioner moved this Court for release on bail in Cr. MP(M). No. 169 of 2011. A direction was issued by this Court that since there was no Additional District and Sessions Judge to try the case, the trial was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and to dispose of the trial expeditiously. Thereafter, again another petition was instituted by the Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge on 26.3.2011 praying for release on bail which was rejected by the learned Court holding inter alia, that the statements of 28 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and three prosecution witnesses remains to be recorded whose evidence is fixed for 25.4.2011.

(2.) THE first contention putforth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no incriminating evidence indicating the Petitioner in the offence and the learned Sessions Judge did not undertake analysis of the evidence as mandated by law. If the evidence of the prosecution is considered, there will be no justification of detaining the Petitioner in jail. Secondly, that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender nor he has any such history of committing crime etc. and, therefore, his enlargement on bail would not be a danger to the society and since the entire evidence has practically been recorded, there is no chance of the Petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned Counsel besides referring to the statements of the witnesses submits that the extra judicial confession has not been supported by the evidence on record and, therefore, the Petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. V. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 to urge that at the time when the bail is granted, a detailed examination of evidence is to be avoided to ensure that there is no prejudging of the entire case but, brief examination is required so that the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of a prima facie case. Learned Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528, holds:

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition which is rejected. Needless to say that the learned court shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously and to ensure that no un -warranted adjournments are granted thereby prolonging the detention of the Petitioner.