JAMMU, July 16: A Jammu court has rejected the regular bail application of an accused in a 2020 murder case, observing that prolonged incarceration by itself cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for granting bail by a Trial Court where the statutory restrictions under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable.
The order was passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma, in connection with a case registered at Police Station Satwari under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused had sought regular bail on the grounds that he had remained in judicial custody for more than six years, that most of the material witnesses—including a child eyewitness—had already been examined, and that no incriminating evidence had surfaced against him during the trial. The defence also argued that a co-accused in the case had already been granted bail and sought similar relief on the principle of parity.
However, after hearing the parties, the Court dismissed the plea, holding that the statements of the witnesses examined so far, including the child eyewitness and other key prosecution witnesses, prima facie implicated the accused in the commission of the offence.
The Court further noted that the trial was still underway, with approximately 18 out of 36 prosecution witnesses examined, while several crucial witnesses were yet to depose before the Court.
Rejecting the argument of parity, the Court observed that the applicant was alleged to be the principal assailant who had inflicted the fatal injury, whereas the co-accused had been granted bail on entirely different considerations, including their individual role in the incident and the fact that they were women.
Addressing the contention regarding prolonged incarceration, the Court clarified that although Constitutional Courts may grant bail in exceptional circumstances to safeguard the fundamental right to a speedy trial, a Trial Court is bound by the statutory embargo contained in Section 437(1)(i) CrPC in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment and cannot disregard the legislative mandate.
Finding no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused, the Court dismissed the regular bail application.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, assisted by Advocate Vishal Mahajan, represented the applicant. Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar appeared for the Union Territory, while Advocate Rajesh Kotwal represented the complainant. (KNC)
