RAMEEZ AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the applicant/accused has craved the indulgence of this Court in admitting him to bail for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 332, 307, 392, 427 RPC, 13 ULA (P) Act and 3 PSS Act, on the grounds, inter alia, that he was detained by the police authorities without any rhyme or reason whatsoever and was lodged in Police Station, D. H. Pora, where a case bearing FIR No. 104/2016 for the commission of the aforesaid offences was registered against him. He moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Kulgam, and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 22.12.2017, directed that the application of the applicant is bereft of any merit and substance and, therefore, the same is rejected.

(2.) It is stated in the application that the offences levelled against the applicant are non-bailable ones. The report sought from the Police Station indicates that the name of the applicant does not figure in the aforesaid FIR. The accused was working as a Sweeper in the Government Middle School, Kounsaral. He is the sole bread earner of his family comprising of his old aged mother and father besides four unmarried sisters. The mother of the accused is suffering from 50% disability. The accused is a peace loving citizen of the State. It is also pleaded in the application that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and the circumstances of the case and the legal position governing the law of bails in the right perspective. The findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the bail, are contrary to the legal position evolved on the subject. The accused/applicant has been languishing in the jail for the last more than five months. The investigation of the case is almost complete and his further detention in the case will not serve any purpose. It will amount to pre-trial detention which is not only against the concept of liberty, guaranteed in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India but has other consequences as well. The offence in which the accused/applicant has been arrested, does not carry the punishment of death or life imprisonment. It is only in cases where the punishment provided be death or imprisonment for life that bail can be withheld and in all other cases grant of bail is the rule and its refusal an exception.

(3.) The State has resisted and controverted the application of the applicant on the grounds that on 09.07.2016, startling inputs were received from a reliable source that an unruly mob set the building housing the Police Station D.H. Pora on fire. The unruly mob was headed by one Mohd Rafiq Dar S/o Khazar Mohd Dar R/o H. M. Gung, D. H. Pora etc. (total 32 in number). The unruly mob was armed with stones, sticks, petrol bombs and were shouting slogans against the State and the Union of India. They started pelting stones on the court building situated at D.H. Pora. They hurled petrol bombs on it, due to which the building along with the records caught fire and all the records were completely gutted and reduced to ashes. The unruly mob attacked the Police Personnel who were guarding the Court building, resulting in injuries to them. The Police Personnel guarding the Court building saved their arms-ammunition from getting looted by the unruly mob. Thereafter, the unruly mob attacked the residential quarter/guard of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class which was situated nearby and set it on fire. Besides the mob attacked the Police Personnel who were guarding the residential quarter and forcibly snatched all their weapons alongwith ammunition. On receipt of the information, a case under FIR No. 104/2016, came to be registered triggering inquest in the matter at Police Station D. H. Pora. Consequently, the investigation was set in motion. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded under section 161 Cr. PC and in addition the statement of witnesses under Section 164-A Cr. PC, were also recorded. During the course of the investigation of the case, some accused persons who were involved were arrested and all the snatched weapons (damaged) without ammunition were recovered from them. The accused persons were later on bailed out by the orders of the Court. During the course of the investigation as per the statements recorded under Section 164-A Cr. PC of one SGCT Riyaz Ahmad No. 311/Kgm revealed that one Rayees Ahmad Mir S/o Mohammad Ayoub Mir R/o Kounsarbal was also heading the unruly mob and he had attacked the said SGCT with a knife and snatched his weapon. During the investigation, the search of the accused namely Rayees Ahmad Mir, was carried out and it was found that the actual name of the accused was Rameez Ahamd Mir S/o Mohd Rafiq Mir R/o Kounsarbal (the applicant in this application) and in this regard the said accused was informed to attend Police Station D. H. Pora on 12.12.2017 in presence of Executive Magistrate D. H. Pora. His identification parade was conducted. During identification parade, the witness namely SGCT Riyaz Ahmad No. 311/Kgmm identified the accused person namely Rameez Ahmad Mir, who had not only attacked the SGCT Riyaz Ahmad No. 311/Kgm but had also snatched his weapon. In this regard, test identification parade was conducted formally in presence of the executive Magistrate D. H. Pora and the identification test form was prepared duly witnessed/singed by the Executive Magistrate. The accused was lodged in District jail Anantnag. It is important to mention here that the applicant/ accused has already approached the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, for seeking bail. However, the Court vide its order dated 22.12.2017 has rejected the same. The applicant in involved in a very heinous offences which are against the security and sovereignty of the State and the grant of bail in favour of the applicant at this stage is not sustainable. In the event of bail, there is every possibility that the accused/applicant will influence the other witnesses and will turn the case in his favour. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The application of the applicant cannot be considered in light of the fact that the involvement of the accused/applicant has surfaced in a crime that has put the security of the State at a peril. It is prima facie established by the Investigating Agency that the applicant was involved in attacking the SGCT Riyaz Ahmad No. 311/Kgm and snatched his weapon. The investigation is at a crucial stage. The process of collecting further material and evidence to buttress the involvement of the accused is moving on.