ASHOK KUMAR BINNY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Kumar alias Binny, styeld by his learned counsel Shri Bhim Singh, as a political activist and described by Shri Salaria the learned Advocate General, as a desperate criminal having failed to obtain bail from the trial court in a challan case under sec. 307/353/324 R. P. C. read with Section 4/27 Indian Arms Act, pending trial against him, has moved this court seeking his release on bail in the said case.

(2.) THE background in which this application has been filed, needs a notice at the very threshold. A case F.I R. No. 773 of 1977 under sec 307/354/ 324 R. P. C. read with Sec. 4/27 of the Indian Arms Act, is pending trial against the applicant in the court of Sessions Judge, Jammu. A perusal of the interim orders from the file of the trial court show that the case was registered against the applicant by the police as early as on 13 -11 -1977 and a challan was filed in the court on 28 -11 -1977, on which date itself copies of the documents, as envisaged under Sec. 173 Cr P. C. were furnished to the applicant. The case was adjourned to 12th of December, 1977, on which date the applicant absented himself from the court. On the next date, i. e. on 27 -12 -1977, the applicant was produced in the court in custody and he was remanded to Judicial custody. The case came up on 10 -2 -1978 for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and while the witnesses were present, the case had to be adjourned, at the request of the applicant, on the ground that his counsel was not available. The applicant was then admitted to bail but on the very next date i. e on 20 -4 -1978, the applicant again absented himself. His presence was directed to be secured by warrant of arrest but the applicant could not be apprehended and thus the proceedings in the case remained at a standstill. It was on account of this continued absence of the applicant that the trial could not proceed further. The learned Sessions Judge was influenced by this fact and he declined the prayer of the applicant, leading to his filing the present application.

(3.) MR . Bhim Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, has argued that the absence of the applicant from the trial court was not intentional and that the trial court failed to take that aspect into consideration. It is urged that from 15 -9 -78 to 14 -9 -79, again from 31 -5 -1980 to 14 -7 -1980 and from 29 -9 -1980 to 24 -1 -1 981 as also during 22 9 -81, the applicant remained in detention either under the J&K Public Safety Act or in connection with one or the other criminal case and as such his absence from the trial court on various dates could not be taken as circumstance against him to deny bail to him. Argued Mr. Bhim Singh that the police made no efforts to secure the presence of the applicant and to cover up its inefficiency it has created a false plea about the alleged intentional absence of the applicant from the trial court. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant had been released by the Supreme court on more than one occassion and that shows that detention of the applicant is malafide.