Sr. No. 02 v. UT of J&K & Anr.

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER 10.12.2024 Bail App No. 139/2023

01. The applicant seeks grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in case FIR No. 93/2023 under Sections 379 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station, Surankote.

02. Respondent No. 2-Naseer Ahmed, approached the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, seeking registration of an FIR against the applicant on the ground that he (respondent no. 2) had gone to Saudi Arabia to earn his livelihood and resides there. In his absence, his wife, namely Yasmin Kouser, W/o Naseer Ahmed, R/o Marha, Surankote, District Poonch, established an illicit relationship with the applicant, Altaf Ahmed, S/o Khadim Hussain, R/o Khablan, Thanamandi, District Rajouri. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 regularly transferred money to his wife for household expenses, but she handed over all the money and the ATM card to the applicant.

03. It is also submitted that various household belongings of respondent no. 2 were stolen by the applicant, and that respondent no. 2 and his children received death threats from the applicant-Altaf Ahmed. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 93/2023 under Sections 379 and 506 IPC was registered at Police Station, Surankote.

04. The contention of the applicant is that he is a student by occupation and has never been involved in any unlawful activity, nor has any criminal case ever been registered against him. It is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR by respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the allegations are the result of a matrimonial dispute between respondent no. 2 and his wife, who has been arrayed as accused no. 2 in the impugned FIR.

05. Respondent no. 2 had, on earlier occasions as well, made several unsuccessful attempts to unlawfully take possession of the seasonal pasture (Dhok) of the applicant. It is submitted that he is now compelling his wife to level false and frivolous allegations against the applicant in order to fulfill his ulterior motives. However, the wife of respondent no. 2 refused to do the same on the ground that she has four minor children and is herself of an age comparable to that of the applicant’s mother but respondent No. 2, in order to harass the applicant, has now decided to implicate him in a false and frivolous FIR.

06. The applicant was admitted to interim bail on 22.05.2023. On the said date, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents for filing objections, directed that, in the meantime, if the applicant was arrested, he would be released on bail subject to certain terms and conditions. This interim order was made subject to objections from the respondents.

07. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab’, (1980) SCC (Cri) 465, laid down the following parameters for grant of bail: "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end. It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”

08. Similarly, in ‘Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI’, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of bail in the following terms: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ’’necessity’’ is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

09. In view of the aforesaid legal principles and keeping in consideration the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim bail on 22.05.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage.

10. Accordingly, the interim bail granted on 22.05.2023 is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: “I. That the applicant shall furnish personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ and two sureties of the like amount before the Investigating Officer. II. That the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required; III. That the applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or the course of investigation in any manner; IV. That the applicant shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of J&K without the permission of the Investigating Officer.”

11. The bail application shall stand disposed of. CRM(M) No. 449/2023 On request of learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned. List on 11.12.2024. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu: 10.12.2024 Michal Sharma/PS Michal Sharma I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Jammu 28.04.2025 13:54