HARMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&KAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MP No. 01/2017& MP No. 64/2011 These applications have been filed seeking suspension of sentence and for grant of bail in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant is in jail for the past 17 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future and the instant appeal is of the year, 2011. On the other hand, learned Senior AAG and learned counsel for the Objector submit that the appellant was charge sheeted under section 302 RPC. He was also acquitted earlier on 09.08.2002. It is further submitted that while the appellant was on bail in the aforesaid trial, the appellant had misused the liberty and committed the offence. It is further submitted that while taking decision for grant of bail the nature of the accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail is to be considered. It is also argued that the court while granting bail shall also take into amount the offence likely to be repeated, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vijay Kumar v. Narindra and others (2002) 9 SCC 364 and Prasanta Kumr Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of Akhtari Bi v. State of MP (2001) 4 SCC 355 has held that if the appeal is likely to be heard in near future and the appellant is in jail for the last ten years, normally he should be released on bail. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. Union of India& Ors. in Writ Petition (Cri.) No.310 of 2005 as well as judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2013, Ravidner Singh and ors. v. State, wherein the Division Bench has held that normally when the accused/appellant has remained in jail for a period of more than 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future, the appellant should be released on bail. Admittedly, the appellant is jail for the past 17 years and the appeals of the year, 2004 and 2005 are being heard. In other words, there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future. Since the appellant is in jail for the last 17 year, in our considered view he would not repeat similar activity again, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the period of detention of the appellant, we deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions: