Sanjay Kumar Gupta ORDER
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
IA No. 01/2017
1. The petitioner/appellant has filed the instant application seeking suspension of sentence and for grant of bail in case titled State of J&K v. Sanjay Kumar, File No. 263/Sessions, in which he stands convicted vide order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, under Section 304-II RPC. It is pertinent that against order of conviction/sentence, the applicant/appellant has also preferred an appeal being CRA No. 33/2017.
2. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner/appellant has been convicted under Section 304-II RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years on flimsy grounds. The petitioner/appellant has been convicted for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of his wife, namely, Sona Devi. It is factually a case of no evidence and the related witnesses, on the basis of which, the judgment and sentence has been passed, are only hear say witnesses. The petitioner/appellant has been prejudiced by the judgment and he has also undergone substantial period in jail and only two years of sentence is remaining, therefore, in such circumstances when the probability of the final adjudication is bleak, the petitioner/appellant may be granted bail. This fact has to be read in conjunction with Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is further stated that the petitioner/appellant has a strong, prima facie, case inasmuch as, balance of convenience tilts in his favour. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2017 as well as sentence passed therein may kindly be suspended and the petitioner/applicant be released on bail.
3. In opposition, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA has filed objections wherein it is stated that the petitioner/appellant has been convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah for offence u/s. 304-II RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs (rupees two Lakh only). It is further stated that the petitioner has been held guilty of the heinous offence of sniffing out the life of his 19 years old wife barely month after the marriage and has no right vested in him to crave indulgence of this Court to release him on bail. The guilty of the petitioner/appellant has been brute beyond doubt and he is liable to undergo the rigorous punishment imposed upon him. No ground much less cogent has been given in the application seeking suspension of sentence or grant of bail. It is further stated that the application filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking release on bail being misconceived and baseless, may kindly be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject.
5. Section 497-D of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"497-D. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained.-Where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded in the writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of personal bond with or without sureties:
Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than maximum period of imprisonment provided for said offence under the law. Explanation:- In computing the period of d........