Mohd. Shabir vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 30 December, 2024

0
41

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohd. Shabir vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 30 December, 2024

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                                       Serial No. 01


         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

Case:-    Bail App No. 148/2024
          CrlM No. 1068/2024

Mohd. Shabir                                .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Age 47 years, S/o Sh. Alam Din
R/o Nalli, Tehsil Manjakote
District Rajouri.

                    Through: Mr. K. M. Bhatti, Advocate.

               Vs

1. Union Territory of J&K through                     ..... Respondent(s)
   Commissioner/Secretary Home Deptt.
   Civil Sectt. Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Senior Superintendent of Police,
   Rajouri.
3. SHO Police Station, Manjakote.
4. Naseem Akhtar, W/o Mohd. Kabir
   R/o Neali, Tehsil Manjakote, District
   Rajouri.

                    Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1 to 3
                             Mr. Abrar Ahmed Khan, Advocate for R-4.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

                                ORDER

(30.12.2024)

1. The petitioner-Mohd. Shabir came rushing to this Court

with the present petition filed on 10.07.2024 seeking grant of pre-

arrest bail in terms of section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (akin to section 438 Cr.P.C 1973) with respect

to FIR No. 0073 dated 22.08.2023 registered with the Police Station

Manjakot for alleged commission of offences under section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 4, 6 & 17 of the Protection

of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 apprehending his

arrest by the Police Station Manjakot, even though when not being

named as an accused in the said FIR but fearing his implication by
2 Bail App No. 148/2024

an abuse of process of law at the end of the complainant as well as

the Police Station Manjakot. In the FIR originally named two

accused persons are Mohd. Yasin and Nazia Kouser.

2. This Court, in terms of an order dated 19.07.2024, came to

grant indulgence in favour of the petitioner by granting him an

interim pre-arrest bail subject to the terms and conditions as laid

down in the order itself pursuant whereof the petitioner is said to

have been arrested and released on bail by the Investigating Officer

(IO) concerned.

3. The fact that the petitioner cooperated by participation in

the investigation of the case is born out from the fact that in the

course of time Final Police Report (Challan) under section 173 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be presented by the

Police Station Manjakot before the court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Rajouri, in which, in addition to two originally named

accused persons, 11 more accused persons came to be booked one

of whom being the petitioner herein.

4. Mr. K. M. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is said to have been even

subjected to charge without being related to offence under section

376 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court is seized of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other

co-accused persons in the case have been admitted to regular bail

by the trial court itself.

3 Bail App No. 148/2024

6. Keeping in view this development and backdrop of the case,

this Court is inclined to grant cover of two months’ period in favour

of the petitioner to be on bail and in the meantime, to approach the

trial court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri before which

case is undergoing trial and to apply there and seek grant of regular

bail.

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by maintaining bail

in favour of the petitioner for a period of two months from the date

of passing of this order by approaching the trial court within said

cover period with the application for seeking regular bail upon

which the trial court shall keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has

co-operated with the investigation of the case and is attending the

trial, shall consider the bail plea of the petitioner on parity basis.

8. In case, the petitioner is not able to approach the trial

court within the time given hereby, the petitioner shall be entitled to

seek extension of time from this Court by a motion to said effect.

9. Disposed of, accordingly.

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
30.12.2024
Shivalee

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Shivalee Khajuria
2024.12.31 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here