Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 21: In the much publicized Pukharpur encounter case, which was transferred from Budgam to Jammu Court on the direction of Supreme Court of India, Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Kartar Singh today rejected the bail application of Waris Shah, the then Sub Inspector SOG.
According to police case, on the intervening night of June 1/2 1999, a specific information was received about the presence of militants in the village Pukharpur, Budgam. The members of the SOG reached the spot where an encounter took place. The one of the member of the SOG received the gun-shot injury. Unidentified body along with AK rifle/ ammunitions recovered.
On a media report, the State Human Right Commission took suo-moto cognizance and enquired into the matter and finally recommended registration of murder case against the members of the SOG. The deceased in this case was a hardcore militant, who was wanted by the police in number of cases. Crime Branch on September 20, 2003 registered a case under Section 302/120-B against the members of the SOG team Pukharpur.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Ravi Dogra for the accused whereas Public Prosecutor for the State, Principal Sessions Judge observed, “it is no doubt true that clause (b) of S. 306(4) directs that the approver shall not be set at liberty till the termination of the trial against the accused persons and the detention of the approver in custody must end with the trial”.
“The dominant object of requiring an approver to be detained in custody until the direction of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution but to protect him from the possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime to whom he has chosen to expose as well as with a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one time friends and companions after he is granted pardon and released from the custody”, the court said.
“It is for these reasons that clause (b) of S. 306(4) casts a duty on the Court to keep the approver under detention till the termination of the trial and thus the provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated. But one thing is clear that the release of an approver on bail may be illegal which can be set aside by a superior Court, but such a release would not have any effect on the validity of the pardon once validly granted to an approver”, the court further said.
With these observations, Court rejected the bail application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel