OM PARKASH Vs. STATE THROUGH INCHARGE POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner-accused is seeking setting aside of order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and enlarging him on bail in case FIR No.229/2019 registered against him in Police Station, Domana Jammu for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452/376 RPC.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kapahi that petitioner-accused had earlier moved the bail application before the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner-accused was not involved in any of the offences and to tarnish the image of the petitioner-accused and also causing harm to his reputation and profession, the aforesaid FIR had been registered against him. It is further contended that the petitioner-accused earlier also moved an application for grant of bail during the course of investigation, which was rejected. After presentation of the challan, another application was moved, stating therein that the petitioner was in the phase of old age and could not see through one eye and other eye was hyper myopic and, therefore, was not able to site things properly. The bail application was rejected by the learned Trial Court primarily on the plea of the prosecution that the offences of heinous and grave nature, like molestation and rape, should be curved with iron hand and there was no change of any circumstance seeking invocation of jurisdiction of the Court for grant of bail by the petitioner-accused. Learned counsel further contends that after the production of the challan, the medical legal report was produced by the prosecution and after examination of said report, it was testified and opined that "the Siemen analysis could not be performed because he was unable to attain erection and could not provide Siemens specimen for the analysis". Learned counsel further contended that the examination of the prosecution was also done by the medical authorities on the request of respondent and vide MLC No. 4347, it was opined that "on the basis of clinical examination and investigation report, there is no recent evidence of sexual intercourse".

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the petition contending therein that in case petitioner-accused is admitted to bail, he may jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses which are yet to be examined in the Trial Court and also on the ground that release of the petitioner-accused at a stage when witnesses are yet to be examined and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the mind of the general public and thwart the course of justice.