STATE Vs. PIR MOHD MAQBOOL YALGAML

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three revision applications directed against the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on 12th December, 1962 in the case of Pir Mohd. Yalgami, on 19th January, 1963 in regard to Mir Mohd. Nazeer and on 24th January, 1963 in respect of Peer Abdul Gani enlarging them on bail and exempting them from personal appearance in the Court for specified periods during their trial. In these revision applications lie within a narrow compass. Sixteen persons are standing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, under Sub-section 121-A and 120-B R. P. C read with Rule 32 of the Jammu and Kashmir Security Rules. The respondents are included among them. In the course of trial the respondents applied before the Additional Sessions Judge on different dates for enlarging them on bail and exempting them from personal appearance in Court for specified periods on grounds detailed in their applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after enquiring Into the grounds urged in the applications enlarged the accused on bail, and granted them exemption from personal appearance in Court under Section 353 and 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as appears from his orders.

(2.) NO revision was filed by the Stale challenging the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at the first instance. But it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge extended periods for bail as well as exemption from personal appearance in the case of each accused from time to time. The dates of last orders in respect of each accused are mentioned above against which the revision applications have been filed in this Court. In the case of Mir Mohd. Nazeer the period for which ball and exemption from personal appearance was granted by the order under revision expired in the end of January, 1963 and he has surrendered to his bail bond and has appeared before the Court. The same is the case of Pir Moh'd Maqbool Yalgami whose period of bail and exemption from personal appearance in Court expired on 10th March, 1963. Both these applications, therefore, have become Infructuous and it is not necessary for us to deal with them, although the points of law Involved In them are the same as are raised in the revision application directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24th January, 1963 granting bail and exemption from personal appearance to Peer Abdul Gani Accused.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the State that the teamed Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have granted bail to the accused Peer Abdul Gani as the grounds mentioned by him did not justify granting of bail in his favour especially when the offences of which the accused was charged were of a very serious nature. It is further contended that In enlarging the accused on bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not borne in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, In the case State v. Jagjit Singh, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held Where an offence is bailable, bail has to be granted under Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but 11 the offence is not bailable, further considerations arise and the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail In the light of those further considerations, such as, nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger Interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. Under Section 493 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure, the powers of the High Court In the matter of granting bail are very wide; even so, where the offence Is non-bailable, various considerations such as those Indicated above have to be taken into account before bail Is granted in a non-bailable offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the order of the Additional Sessions Judge enlarging the accused on bail and has argued that the grounds enumerated In the order or not such as would Justify the granting of bail. It is true that the nature of the offences ot which the accused is charged is serious. But, in our opinion, the trial Judge has taken Into consideration the circumstances which are necessary to be borne In mind is granting bail in case of non-bailable offence and we do not see any good reason to overset the order granting bail in revision, especially when the period of bail is going to expire, after about a fortnight, i. e. , on the 24th of March, 1963.