Regular v. Union Territory of J & K
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Through: Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy. AG. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 01.05.2023
The petitioners figure as accused in the charge sheet titled “UT of J & K versus Showkat Ahmad Bhat & Anr”, pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as „the trial court‟), where the petitioners are facing trial for the commission of offence under Section 8/20-29 NDPS Act in FIR No. 49/2021, registered with Police Station Qazigund.
The petitioners had earlier approached the learned trial Court for grant of bail, but their effort to obtain bail met with the failure as the learned trial Court rejected the application vide Order dated 26.12.2022. The petitioners have filed the present petition on the ground that the witnesses
examined by the prosecution have made contradictory statements and that the petitioners have been in jail for the last more than one year. Response stands filed by the respondents in which the factual aspects of the case have been narrated. Mr Shuja ul Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners have been in custody for the last more than one year and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have made contradictory statements destroying the prosecution case He further submitted that only two witnesses remain to be examined. Heard and perused the record. The perusal of the record reveals that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, as 4.5 kilogram of „charas‟ has been recovered from the petitioners. Since the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioners is a commercial quantity so, rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable in the instant case.
It is settled law that the Court cannot appreciate the evidence while considering the application for grant of bail and at this stage, in view of the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said with certainty that petitioners have not committed any offence. However, taking into consideration that only two witnesses remain to be examined by the prosecution, this Court deems it proper to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within the period of three months from the date a copy of this Order is made available to the trial court and the trial Court shall further ensure that the remaining two witnesses are examined within the period mentioned above.
Disposed of as above. SRINAGAR 01.05.2023 Hilal Ahmad (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.