MURAD ALI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners figure as accused in charge sheet, titled, "U. T. of J&K vs. Murad Ali and others" pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial court") arising out of FIR bearing No. 187/2022 for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 364, 427, 147 and 148 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station, Bari Brahmana, and are seeking bail on the grounds that the statements made by three eye witnesses before the learned trial court do not connect the petitioners with commission of any offence and they are facing incarnation for the last two and half years. It is also averred in the application that till date, out of 37 witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined by the learned trial court.

(2.) Objections stand filed by the official respondents as well as the complainant, thereby narrating the factual aspects of the case. In the response, the official respondents have stated that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial and the prosecution has summoned and recorded the statements of the witnesses time to time without any delay and further that there are 12 accused, who are still absconding in the instant case and yet to be apprehended. It is also stated that the offences in which petitioners are involved carry death penalty or life imprisonment and keeping in view of the severity of punishment, the petitioners do not deserve any concession of bail.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the eye witnesses examined till date have not deposed about the role played by the petitioners in the commission of offence of murder and rather general allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that in a span of two and half years, only five witnesses have been examined.