STATE Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in this application is being tried by the learned-Sessions Judge, Kathua, for an offence of murder under Section 302 of the R. P. C. , pursuant to his commitment by the learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Hiranagar. The trial is still at the initial stage. After his commitment the respondent applied for bail and the learned Sessions Judge bailed him out holding that there did not appear reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The State has applied under Sub-section (5) of Section 497 of the Cr. P. C. , for setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and for commitment of the respondent to custody.

(2.) I have heard the Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State and the counsel for the respondent. The record of the case has also been perused.

(3.) IN the process of taking a decision whether or not the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that there did not appear reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I started thinking as to when can we say that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and then what is the guiding principle for such a belief. A further question stared at me that was : What is the difference, if any, between a belief which a court is required to have under Sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the Cr. P, C. regarding a person being guilty of such an offence and a belief sufficient to warrant e conviction on the conclusion of the trial. Is the court to use the same angle, approach and touchstone while dealing with either situation? The thought has detained me for pretty long and provoked application of mind. I proceed to say how. I resolved the conflict.