(1.) Through the instant application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioners seek bail.
(2.) Facts, relevant for disposal of the present bail application, briefly stated are that; two cases (challans) out of one occurrence dated 08.07.2009 have arisen between the same parties. Whereas case titled, "State v/s Jyoti Sharma & Ors.", had been registered pursuant to F.I.R No.110 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code read with Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act and case titled, "State v/s Sunil Sharma & Ors." came to be registered pursuant to F.I.R No.111 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code read with Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act by the respondent. It is stated that the instant case is an outcome of F.I.R No. 110 of 2009 and still pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Session Judge, Jammu, for final arguments and the other challan titled, "State v/s Sunil Kumar &Ors.", which is an outcome of F.l.R. No.111 of 2009, was initially pending trial in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. However the Hon ble High Court has transferred the challan titled, "State v/s Sunil Kumar & ors.", to the trial Court i.e., 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on the ground that both the cases pertain to one transaction and in order to avoid possible conflicting judgments. It is stated that after the passing of the abovementioned order and in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, proceedings in the case titled. "State v/s Jyoti Sharma & Ors.", has been deferred by the trial Court so that the final arguments in both the cases could be heard together. However, in the case titled, "State v/s Sunil Kumar & Ors, the proceedings are going at a slow pace for the reasons that one accused has passed away, one accused has been proceeded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the third accused is playing hide and seek with the trial Court. This being so, the trial is bound to take years together in further incarceration of the petitioners herein, for no fault of theirs.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners facing incarceration for the last eight years and also the case is ripe for final hearing but in other case titled "State v/s Sunil Kumar & ors", only one witness has been recorded by the trial Court so far and is bound to take considerable time, therefore, the petitioners approached the trial Court for their release on bail, but the trial Court vide its order dated 28.10.2017 has rejected their bail applications.