SUBASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the Charge under Sections 302/109/147/148 and 149 RPC, framed against them, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, vide his order of March 24, 2008, the petitioners have filed these Petitions seeking its setting aside and quashing. They seek their release on bail pending trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court had committed an error of law apparent on the face of records, in framing Charge against them, in a routine fashion, ignoring the provisions of the law governing the field, when the case projected by the prosecution, would not indicate them to have committed the offence(s) for which they have been Charged. It was argued in the alternative, that even if a case for framing Charge, may be said, to have been made out, all the petitioners could not be so Charged, and that too, for the offences they are erroneously, prima facie, found to have committed. According to the learned counsel, the facts and circumstances of the case amply demonstrate that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners had committed offences, punishment wherefor, was death or imprisonment for life, and the petitioners, who had faced unnecessary incarceration, for long time, were entitled to consideration for release on bail pending trial, if it were to continue as such.

(3.) Justifying the Charge, the learned State counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court, being interlocutory, the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction may not be warranted; and even otherwise, the issues projected by the petitioners that they were not liable to be Charged for the offences, found to have been made out against them by the trial Court, cannot be considered, while examining the prosecution case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 268 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which do not permit meticulous examination of the merits of the prosecution case.