AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail under Section 498, Cr. P. C. The petitioners have been committed to the Court of Session at Baramulla by the Judicial Magistrate Kupwara to stand their trial under Section 302/34, R. P. C. for the murder or one, Lassi Mir, deceased, There is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The important circumstances relied on by the prosecution are: firstly that some hairstrands worn on his head by the accused, Rasul Sheikh, were found nearabout the dead body: and, secondly that some shoe prints of the deceased and the other two accused persons, Ahmad Sheikh and Khaliq Sheikh were noticed at and near the spot where the deceased was lying dead. For proof of these circumstances the prosecution proposes to examine the Forensic Experts. The Courts below have rejected the request of the petitioners for bail holding that there was prima facie evidence to connect them with the crime.

(2.) APPEARING for the petitioners, Mr. Beg argued that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were too refined and the evidence bearing on the same being too feable to justify the detention of the petitioners in custody pending trial, particularly so, because their continued detention will gravely prejudice their defence and, as such, he argued further, this was a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 498, Cr. P. C, which, he added, were very wide. In reply the learned Additional Advocate General argued that it was too early to say that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution and the evidence bearing on the same were weak or undependable: and, in any case, the order of commitment implied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused were guilty of the offence with which they were charged and, as such, bail could not be appropriately granted to the accused by reason of Section 497 (1) which, lie further argued, controlled Section 498, Cr, P. C.

(3.) IN Jawahar Bania v. State, 1973; J. and K, LR 74 it was held by this Courtj that the discretion to grant bail given to the High Court and the Court of Session under Section 498, Cr. P. C. is not fettered in! terms by the restrictions contained in Section 497 (1) but, on principle, these restrictions should equally govern the exercise of the discretion by them under Section 498,' Cr. P. C. Accordingly if there are "reasonable grounds' for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or trans-' portation for life, the High Court and the! Court of Session will not, except in special circumstances,. grant bail to such person. Wether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of such offence depends on what evidence is offered by the prosecution to prove the charge against him. In order to come to a conclusion that a person is guilty, the Court must consider the nature and the character of the evidence against him. If it finds that there is positive evidence which, if unrebutted, might lead to the conclusion that the charge against him stands proved, it can justifiably hold that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty.