MOHD. SULEMAN Vs. U. T. OF J. &K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 128/2022 for offences under Ss. 366, 376 and 109 IPC. The case is stated to be pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), where the trial is going on.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that he was arrested on 19/5/2022 in a false and frivolous FIR and that presently he is facing trial before the trial court. According to the petitioner, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court during trial of the case and from her statement, it is clear that her version of the occurrence is unworthy of credit. The petitioner has further submitted that after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix, he had applied before the trial court for grant of bail but his application was rejected by the said court in terms of order dtd. 7/6/2023. It has been contended that the order of rejection of bail application of the petitioner has been passed by the trial court without correctly appreciating the material on record. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that he has to support his old and ailing parents and in his absence, it is becoming very difficult to take care of the needs of his parents. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court in the event, he is admitted to bail.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the present bail application by filing objections thereto. In their objections, the respondents have narrated the prosecution version of the case and they have submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail. It has been further contended that the prosecutrix has clearly implicated the petitioner, while making her statement during trial of the case. Thus, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is prima facie, established.