BAIL APP No. 54 of 2024 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions urged at the Bar, without making any comment with regard to merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the petitioner to approach…
Judgment
Through :- Mr. Amarvir Manhas, Advocate
1. Union Territory of Ladakh through SHO, Women Police Station Leh. v/s
2. XYZ .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 27.03.2024
Petitioner through the medium of this petition moved in terms of Section 438 CrPC seeks grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No. 05/2019 at Women Police Station Leh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A) RPC read with Section 9(1) 10 of the POCSO Act asserting therein that the petitioner as an accused was never summoned by the Investigating Officer during the entire proceedings of the investigation of a false and frivolous case registered, on the complaint of respondent No.2, at the behest of some opponents; that the case was concluded into charge-sheet and same was laid before the Sessions Court at Leh on 12.02.2022; that proceedings U/S 512 CrPC were initiated against him by the Trial Court on 26.04.2022, without issuing any notice/summon to the petitioner as an accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who as a reputed person having remained as President Ladakh Buddhist Association an apex body of the Buddhists living in Ladakh region, apprehends that he may be arrested in view of the warrants issued by the trial Court.
Heard. 2 Bail App No. 54/2024 Issue notice.
Notice is waived by Mr. Sumant Sudan, assisting counsel to Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for respondent No.1-UT of Ladakh has strongly opposed the plea raised by the petitioner in this petition and alleged that the petitioner has neither associated with the Investigation of the case nor is now facing trial and has been rightly declared as absconder by the trial Court while initiating proceedings under section 512 CrPC and since the charge sheet has already been laid before the trial Court, the petitioner could have move the trial Court for recalling the proceedings initiated in terms of Section 512 CrPC by the trial Court and prayed that the application be rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given some protection till he is able to appear before the trial Court to move for recalling the order whereby the proceedings against him were initiated in terms of Section 512 CrPC and also to move a motion for grant of bail.
Operative part
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions urged at the Bar, without making any comment with regard to merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the petitioner to approach the trial Court seeking recalling of the order passed against him in terms of Section 512 CrPC and to seek grant of bail within a period of 15 days from the date of this order and till then the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, shall be admitted to bail and released on furnishing bail and personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is made clear that this order shall remain in force till 15.04.2024 only.
Disposed of, in terms of above. (M A Chowdhary) Judge JAMMU 27.03.2024 Vijay Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
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.