Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Arfan Nadeem vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Its … on 21 December, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S. No. 5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- Bail App No. 259/2024
CrlM No. 1699/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 831/2024
CrlM Nos. 1697 & 1698/2024
1. Arfan Nadeem, S/o Alaf Din, age 33 years,
2. Alaf Din S/o Lal Din, age 61 years
3. Mohd Mehmood Abass, S/o Mohd Munir, age 19 years,
4. Mohd Abass Nazir S/o Munir, age 20 years
5. Abdul Majid S/o Mohd Mahroof, age 23 years
6. Arshad Begum W/o Alaf Din, age 54 years
7. Farhat Jabeen D/o Alaf Din, W/o Arfan Ahmed, age 24
years
8. Musrat Jabeen D/o Alaf Din,
All R/o Village Samote Tehsil Koteranka District Rajouri .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Z A Qazi, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of J&K through its Principal
Secretary(Home), Govt. of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu
2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Budhal.
3. Arfan Ahmed S/o Layaqat Ali,
4. Parveen Akhter W/o Layaqat Ali, both R/o village
Dramman Tehsil Koteranka, District Rajouri ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(21.12.2024)
(ORAL)
Bail App No. 259/2024
01. This is an application for bail by, in as many as, eight persons involved in
FIR No. 0142/2024, registered with Police Station, Budhal on 25.10.2024
for offences under Sections 333, 115(2) and 191(2) of BNS, 2023.
02. The matter was considered by this Court on 04.11.2024 and on being
2 Bail App 259/2024 &
CRM(M) No. 831/2024
satisfied that the petitioners had made out a case for grant of interim
anticipatory bail, passed an order to that effect subject to the terms and
conditions enumerated in the said order.
03. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA has filed the status report which however, is not on
record. He, however, submits that having regard to the nature of offences
committed by the petitioners against the complainant, the petitioners do not
deserve bail in anticipation of their arrest.
04. I have gone through the FIR, copy whereof is appended with the
application and find that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
neither specific nor can be treated as very serious. The only allegation
made by the complainant is that on 25.10.2024, the petitioners trespassed
into her house with criminal intention, attacked her and torn her clothes.
There is neither any medical report with regard to the injuries, if any,
suffered by the complainant nor is there any motive for such incident
narrated in the FIR. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA however, submits that the
investigation in the matter is now complete and the challan has been
presented in the competent Court of law.
05. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also regard
being had to the fact that the investigation in the FIR has been completed
and challan presented before the competent Court of law, the petitioners are
no more required for any custodial interrogation. It is also not alleged by
the respondents that during the period, the petitioners were on anticipatory
bail, they committed any act or omission aimed at disrupting or influencing
the investigation.
3 Bail App 259/2024 &
CRM(M) No. 831/2024
06. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed and the interim
anticipatory bail order passed on 04.11.2024, is confirmed.
CrlM No. 1698/2024 in CRM(M) No. 831/2024
07. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the requirement
of filing certified copies of FIR Nos. 0141 and 0142 of 2024 dated
25.10.2024, registered with Police Station, Budhal, is dispensed with.
CRM(M) No. 831/2024
08. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment of
FIR No. 0142/2024 dated 25.10.2024 on the grounds enumerated in the
petition.
09. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned GA appearing for the respondents submits that
the position has now changed, the police upon investigation has found the
case proved and presented the challan before the competent Court of law.
10. In view of the aforesaid, it is open to the petitioners to argue before the trial
Court when the matter is taken up for framing of charges. Needless to say
that in case the trial Court frames charges, it shall still be open to the
petitioners to come to this Court under Section 528 of BNSS to challenge
the charges framed. The petition at this stage is not entertainable and the
same is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected applications.
(SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
21.12.2024
Vijay
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Vijay Kumar
2024.12.21 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document