Blog

The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to bail on ground of delay is also not sustainable in view of the fact that it is not the case where the prosecution has not led any evidence, rather the prosecution has examined number of witnesses. The aforesaid has been established by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while adjudicating the case of Kewal Sharma v. Union Territory of J&K [Bail App No. 79/2021] which was decided upon by a single judge bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal on 12^th November 2021.

The facts of the case are as follows. the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under section 302 RPC pending before the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 28.08.2013, when the deceased Vijay Kumar came to the residence of the petitioner for the purpose of getting money regarding the land purchased by the petitioner from the deceased, the petitioner murdered the deceased and cut the body of the deceased into various parts with Axe and further after keeping the body parts in a trunk and bag carried in a vehicle and threw in the river-Chenab. The charges for commission of offences under sections 302/201 RPC were framed against the petitioner and the prosecution has cited as many as 32 witnesses and out of which, many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and number of other witnesses are yet to be examined.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “The case against the petitioner is based upon the disclosure statement and the last scene theory. So far as evidence brought on record is concerned, it is not the case where all the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. This Court no doubt can look in to evidence but cannot appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The contentions raised by the petitioner that there is in fact no last scene theory and the disclosure does not connect the petitioner with any crime, pertain to the merits and cannot be considered at this stage. A number of other witnesses are yet to be examined and they include the material witnesses as well with regard to the proceeding of the deceased to the house of the petitioner. Due to corona pandemic all the Courts functioned in restricted manner for the last more than one year. But still the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. In view of the above, the instant application has no merit, as such, the same is dismissed. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and no un-necessary adjournments shall be granted to either of the parties.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Aryan Bajaj