LAWS(J&K)-2020-8-39

MUSHTAQ AHMAD BAHADUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JK

Decided On August 21, 2020
Mushtaq Ahmad Bahadur Appellant
V/S
Union Territory Of Jk Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of the instant application, the applicants are seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with case bearing FIR No. 147/2020, registered in Police Station, Rangreth, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 323 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the instant application, as stated by the applicants in their application, are that the applicants claim that the complainant and her family members barged their into private property and resorted to physical violence/abuse, while trespassing the right of the applicants for which an FIR, bearing No. 146/2020, came to be registered against the complainant and her husband in Police post B. A. No. 49/2020 Rangreth, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pleaded that as a counter to the FIR aforesaid, the complainant lodged a false complaint against the applicants vide FIR No. 147/2020 in Police Station, Rangreth, Srinagar, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 323 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicants, accordingly, immediately preferred an application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, for seeking bail in anticipation of arrest in connection with the aforesaid case which was granted to them on 3rd of June, 2020. However, thereafter, as stated, in terms of order dated 30th of June, 2020, the said interim bail was rejected by the Court below on the report filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case alleging non-cooperation on part of the applicants. Faced with the above circumstances, the applicants have filed the instant application before this Court seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest in the aforesaid case.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the 'Case Diary' produced by Mr B. A. Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General and considered the matter.