Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, June 6: High Court reversed the bail order of an accused involved in rape of a woman with the direction to him to surrender before the trial court within one month.
The petition was moved by the prosecution through SHO police station Sumbal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora whereby the respondent-accused Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie has been enlarged on bail on 27.06.2024.
“Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and an impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and the bail granted to the respondent-accused is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within a period of one month from the date of this order, whereafter, the trial court shall remand him to custody”, Justice Sanjay Dhar directed.
The court has left it open for the accused to apply for grant of bail afresh after the statements of other eye witnesses to the occurrence are recorded by the trial court. The court has further directed that the court below shall take all necessary steps for recording the statements of the other eye witnesses by fixing a calendar and the prosecuting agency shall extend all cooperation in producing the said witnesses before the trial court.
Justice Dhar said the trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent-accused is serious in nature carrying maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
“…the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and perverse as the same is based on material, which is not relevant. Thus, this is a fit case where this Court should interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court”.
The court rejected the arguments of the counsel representing respondent-accused that he has been in incarceration for about 18 months. The court in this regard said it does not seem to be strong enough to enlarge him on bail because the charge against the accused came to be framed only on 11.04.2023 and within one year, thereafter, the prosecution has examined two material witnesses, the prosecutrix and her father.
“Thus, it cannot be stated that there has been any undue delay on the part of the prosecution to produce its witnesses before the trial court. A mere delay of few months in trial of a heinous crime like rape would not in every such case lead to infringement of right of speedy trial of an accused so as to give him right to be enlarged on bail on this sole ground”, reads the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
