‘Court Cannot Minutely Examine & Analyze Statements While Deciding Bail Application’: J&K&L HC Denies Bail To Former LeT Militant

The Court was hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, for the charge of offences under Sections 302, 307,458,436,511,201,120-B Ranbir Penal Code 1932 and 7/25 Arms Act, 1959. 

The bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “…There may be some contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements made during cross-examination, but it is not open to this Court to minutely examine and analyze their statements at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioners…meticulous or detailed examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses may or may not bring out inconsistencies and contradictions on vital aspects of the case, but this is not the stage for this Court to undertake such an exercise as the same would amount to prejudging merits of the case.”

Brief Facts-

Militants attacked the police picket, seriously injuring 2 SPOs, who later died. An FIR was filed for offences including murder and illegal arms use. An investigation team arrested a suspect, leading to more arrests and the recovery of weapons and ammunition. The investigation revealed that Abdul Rashid, a former LeT militant, conspired with others, including militants in Pakistan, to destabilise India.

The Court noted that whatever delay has been caused in the progress of the trial, the same has been caused due to the intervention of covid-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictions in the physical hearing of the cases. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed either to the trial Court or to the prosecution.

The Court mentioned the decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the Supreme Court held that in a case where the gravity of offence alleged against an accused is severe, the bail cannot be granted only on grounds of long incarceration.

The Court noted that in the judgment Supreme Court also observed that the conditions laid down in Section 437(1)(i) of Cr. P. C is the sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code, according to the Court meaning thereby that in a case where a person is alleged to be involved in an offence punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life, he cannot be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of such an offence.

The Court noted that the statements of material witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case, prima facie, show the involvement of Abdul Rashid and Shafkat Hussain in the commission of an alleged crime. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope for this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail, on merits.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the applications.

Cause Title: Abdul Rashid v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. I. H. Bhat

Respondent: G.A. Adarsh Bhagat

Click here to read/download Judgment