Riyaz Ahmad Geelani vs Ut Through Additional Advocate General … on 7 March, 2025

0
6

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Riyaz Ahmad Geelani vs Ut Through Additional Advocate General … on 7 March, 2025

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                          01
                                          Regular

    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                AT SRINAGAR

                                        CRM(M) No. 77/2025
                                          CrlM No. 157/2025

Riyaz Ahmad Geelani
                                         ..... Petitioner (s)

                      Through: Mr. Z A Qureshi, Sr. Adv.
                             with Ms. Rehana, Adv.

                   V/s

UT through Additional Advocate General and Ors.
                                      ..... Respondent(s)
                    Through:Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, AAG
                             Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA
Coram:
         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge.

                           ORDER

07.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. Z A Qureshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and perused the petition and also

the annexures therewith.

2. Respondent No. 3-Saima Akbar is a complainant on whose

complaint the petitioner came to be booked in an FIR No.

15/2024 and latter on put up for trial under the Police

Report (Challan) No. 5/2025 by the Police Station
Page |2
CRM(M) No. 77/2025
CrlM No. 157/2025

Handwara for alleged commission of offences under sections

69 (Sexual Intercourse by deceitful means etc), 89 (Causing

Marriage without Women’s Consent), 351(2) (Criminal

Intimidation) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(BNSS), 2023.

3. The petitioner, being in custody firstly as an accused and

then later on as under-trial w.e.f 11.01.2025 and after having

suffered rejection of his bail applications on two occasions

from the criminal court below, has came forward invoking

inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for

seeking quashment of order dated 08.02.2025 passed by the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara whereby the

petitioner’s bail application came to suffer dismissal by

purported reasoning on the part of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Handwara as to effect that as the first bail

application stood rejected in terms of order dated 25.01.2025

passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Handwara so the

that filing of second bail application on the part of the
Page |3
CRM(M) No. 77/2025
CrlM No. 157/2025

petitioner without involving any substantial circumstantial

change in the investigation was misconceived

4. During the pendency of the present matter, an intervening

development has come to take place which is that the Police

Station Handwara has come forward with the production of

final police report (challan No. 05/2025) before the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara which is a good

enough change of circumstances with respect to the case

whereby the petitioner’s bail application, otherwise

dismissed in terms of the order, bearing head Note date

08.02.2025 and foot note date 08.02.2024, needs to be set

aside with a direction unto the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Handwara that in case if the final police report (challan) is

pending adjudication before his court, then to restore and

rehear the bail application in light of the final police report

(challan) as submitted against the petitioner and to decide

the bail application on merits. If the final police report

(challan) has been transferred to the Court of Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class then to send the bail application to the

transferee court for needful adjudication.

Page |4
CRM(M) No. 77/2025
CrlM No. 157/2025

5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara to rehear the bail

application of the petitioner in light of the final police report

(challan) presented in the matter and dispose of the bail

application within a period of 15 days from the date a

certified copy of this order is made available to him.

6. Before parting with this order, this Court puts a caution for

the notice of the Presiding Officer of the court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Handwara that mistakes obtaining with

respect to incorrect mention of dates is an embarrassment to

the judicial mind and authority as such like mistakes hint

towards non-application of the mind on the part of the

judicial officer while hearing and signing the judicial

order/s.

7. Disposed of.

(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR
07.03.2025
Aasif



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here