Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Feb 27: High Court emphasized that the courts are duty bound to indicate reasons with satisfaction while granting bail to the accused charged in heinous crimes punishable with death or life imprisonment.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal emphasized that bail orders in serious criminal cases cannot be passed in a cursory or mechanical manner by recording that the courts are duty-bound to indicate reasons reflecting a prima facie satisfaction while granting bail in grave offences.
Justice Oswal dismissed a bail plea filed by several accused facing trial for offences including murder and attempt to murder.
The bail application was filed by the accused involved in a case arising out of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 364, 427, 147 and 148 IPC along with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused have been in custody for over two and a half years and sought their release on the ground that the prosecution witnesses examined so far did not attribute any specific role to them.
The counsel of the accused, contended that the statements of the three prosecution witnesses examined so far, including the injured witness, did not specifically establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences. He further submitted that despite prolonged incarceration of over two and a half years, only a handful of witnesses had been examined, entitling the accused to bail.
The prosecution counsel submitted that there was no delay attributable to the prosecution and that the trial progressed in accordance with law. He pointed out that the delay was occasioned largely due to multiple arrests of absconding accused at different stages and adjournments sought by the defence during the stage of framing of charge.
Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were extremely grave, involving abduction, brutal assault and murder. The Court observed that the statements of eyewitnesses, clearly narrated the sequence of events and the role attributed to the accused persons during the assault.
“The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though a detailed examination of evidence is not required, there is a need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail is being granted, particularly where the accused is charged with having committed a serious offence”, reads the judgment.
“At this stage, it cannot be said that there is a total absence of evidence against the petitioners. Any contradiction in testimony cannot be evaluated now, as doing so would amount to prejudging the merits of the case.”
While dismissing the bail plea, the Court emphasized the trial court to ensure a speedy trial and directed that unnecessary adjournments should not be granted to either side.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
