‘No Clinching & Credible Evidence’, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC Granted Bail To Accused In Wife’s Murder Case

The Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court granted bail to a man accused of murdering his wife observing that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the accused was involved in any offence he has been charged with.

A bail application was filed by the accused primarily on the ground that 10 out of 20 witnesses examined by the prosecution in the trial Court, do not even remotely suggest his involvement in any crime, much less the commission of offence he has been charged with.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed, “It did not require any detailed examination of the prosecution evidence and a cursory glance at the prosecution evidence would show that there is no evidence worthy of credence to implicate the applicant in the commission of crime he has been charged with. In such cases of “No Evidence” the Courts are obliged to take a holistic view of the matter and exercise the discretion of bail.”

Senior Advocate P. N. Raina represented the Applicant, while Advocate Bhannu Jasrotia represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The prosecution contended that the accused, Sarpanch and Member of Village Defence Committee was issued a 303 rifle along with 50 live cartridges. He had two children and a wife. It was alleged that the accused came home inebriated and when he enquired about his son, he was told by the deceased that he had just arrived from the marriage function. On this, the accused got annoyed with his wife and told her that it was because of her that their son was playing DJ, which was not a respectful job. He picked fight with her, took out the VDC riffle, shot at his wife with an intention to kill due to which she received grievous injuries.

However, the primary witness of the prosecution, the son and daughter of the accused, went hostile in the trial court stating that none of them had actually seen the accused shoot his wife.

The accused contended that it was apparent from the evidence available on the case file that there was no material evidence in support of charge and him being more than 60 years of age with no criminal antecedents, was entitled to bail. The same was opposed by the prosecution on the ground of gravity and seriousness of charge.

Court’s Analysis

The Court opined that the compendium of the grounds urged for release of the petitioner on bail is that there is no clinching and credible evidence available on the record connecting him with the commission of alleged crime.

“Bail or jail belongs to the blurred area of criminal justice system which largely hinges on the hunch of the Bench, otherwise called the judicial discretion. Personal liberty of a citizen is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 of Constitution. Court should take cognizance of the fact that liberty of an individual whose involvement has not been established in the commission of an offence, should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty has immense impact on his mind. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual”, the Court said.

Further, the Court emphasised that examination of the material in the present case, verily points out the absence of material in believing that the accused is involved in the commission of offence for which he stands charged.

“There is no reasonable ground to believe that applicant was involved in any offence he has been charged with as the existence of reasonable grounds depends upon the evidence, which has been led and existence and otherwise of reasonable grounds would always relate to its existence in the evidence and not otherwise”, the Court added.

In the light of the above, the Bench granted bail to the accused on the condition that he shall furnish a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and a bond of personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent of the concerned Jail, regularly appear before the trial court; and he shall not directly or indirectly make any attempt to coerce or influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and the accused was admitted on bail.

Cause Title: Yashpaul Sharma V. UT of J&K

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. N. Raina and Advocate J. A. Hamal

Respondent: Advocate Bhannu Jasrotia

Click here to read/download Judgment.