Rajnesh Oswal JUDGMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present bail application seeking bail in challan, titled, State of J & K vs. Rattan Lal, arising out of FIR bearing No. 66/2014 dated 20.03.2014 registered with Police Station, R.S. Pura for commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 460, 148 149, 427, 120-B, 109 RPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act pending before the court of learned Ist Additional and Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to be as the trial court).
2. It is contended in the petition that there are as many as 55 witnesses mentioned in the challan and till date only 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and none of witnesses examined so far, has supported the case of the prosecution connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences/crime. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a false and frivolous case as there is no evidence against the petitioner on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offences and even in the charge sheet, it has been stated that no injury has been inflicted by any outside person(s) and all the injuries were inflicted by family members of Mohinder Kumar. It is also stated that one of the main witness, namely, Neelam Verma, Police official has categorically and specifically stated before the trial court that at no point of time he had allowed any one to establish contact with the petitioner named in the aforesaid FIR, whereas in the FIR it has been alleged that the said persons met the petitioner while in custody and a conspiracy was hatched to murder the deceased. It is further contended that right of speedy trial of the petitioner has been violated as till date only 11 witnesses have been examined by the trial court. It is further stated that the petitioner had earlier filed bail application before the trial court but the learned trial court dismissed the said application vide order dated 07.06.2018 and now, the present bail application has been filed.
3. Objections stand filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that after a detailed investigation, the involvement of the petitioner was found in hatching the conspiracy for murder of the deceased. The petitioner has arranged two persons, namely, Gulshan Kumar and Bilbir Singh for committing the murder. It is also stated that the petitioner cannot be granted bail as there is bar in granting the bail for commission of offence under section 302 RPC.
4. Mr. Sudershan Sharam, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the bail application. Besides, he submitted that the many material witnesses have been examined and the complainant, PW-1-Ashwani Kumar, is yet to be examined.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG vehemently submitted that evidence cannot be appreciated while considering the application for grant of bail. He further submitted that since the charges against the petitioner are of serious nature, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage, when only 11 out of 55 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner will threaten and win over the witnesses if granted bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the charges for commission of offence under section 302, 109, 120-B RPC were framed against the petitioner on 02.01.2015 by the trial court and the allegations against the petitioner are that the other co-accused met with the petitioner for committing the murder of the deceased and conspiracy was hatched. The petitioner arranged two persons, namely, Gulshan Kumar and Balbir Singh for committing the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has cited as many as 55 witnesses, out of which only 11 witnesses have been examined till date and rest of the witnesses including th........