KALI DASS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present bail application, Petitioner-Kali Dass seeks bail, inter alia, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No.85/2016 dated 23.05.2016 under section 498-A/306 RPC registered at Police Station Gharota.

(2.) It is stated in the application that the petitioner and his father were taken into custody on 23.05.2016 and were kept for more than two months and thereafter both of them were released by the police after taking the undertaking from them that they shall remain present daily. It is further stated that for the last near about seven months, the petitioner along with his father were in the police; that they have cooperated, but have been falsely been implicated without any basis; that FIR No.85/2016 dated 23.05.2016 under section 498-A/306 RPC was registered at Police Station Gharota and they were taken into custody and remained in custody for two month ; thereafter they were released. It is further stated that all of sudden on 18.12.2016, the petitioner and his father were again taken into custody and the Challan was presented on 11.01.2017, the co-accused in same FIR No.85/2016 dated 23.05.2016 has been released on bail vide order dated 14.01.2017. S That the challan has been presented on 11.01.2017 and the same is pending before the learned 1st Additional District& Sessions Judge, Jammu for evidence of the prosecution, as on date no evidence has been produced by the prosecution. The petitioner moved an application on 04.03.2017 before the learned trial Court which was rejected on 30.03.2017 without application of mind; the petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2016 in FIR No.85/2016, whereas the learned trial Court rejected the bail application stating therein that the FIR No.85/2016 was registered at Police Station Women Cell Jammu for the commission of offences under section 306/498-A/34 RPC which is factually incorrect, as the FIR No.85/2016 under Section 498-A/306/34 RPC was registered by the Police Station, Gharota and not by the Police Station Women Cell, Jammu. Moreover the petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2016, and not on 20.12.2016 which is evident from the challan/charge sheet submitted before the learned trial Court. The Charge sheet has been framed on 20.03.2017 for the offence under section 306/498-A RPC only and no charge sheet has been framed under section 34 RPC. The co-accused has been released on bail on 14.01.2017. That no previous complaint was ever made against the petitioner up to the date of death; the her death took place all of sudden; that after her death, the statements of two witnesses namely Renu Devi D/o Sh. Soba Ram real sister of the deceased and Sh. Bansi Lal S/o Jaga Ram real uncle of the deceased were got recorded on 07.01.2017 before the learned Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate Jammu. The statements of these prosecution witnesses who happened to be the real sister and real uncle of the deceased are baseless, concocted and are in contradict to each other, as the statement of Renu Devi (real sister of the deceased) was also recorded under section 175 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 13.11.2016 and her statements under section 164-A Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate on 07.01.2017 after seven months of the occurrence, similarly the statement of prosecution witness Bansi Lal was recorded under section 175 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 24.05.2016 and under section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2017 after the lapse of seven months from the date of alleged occurrence i.e 23.05.2017.

(3.) On the basis of afore mentioned submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted bail; and he shall not violate and jump over the conditions imposed by this Court.