Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 18: Principal Sessions Judge Kathua, M K Hanjura today rejected the bail application of one Shiv Lal, son of Anant Ram of Ward No.15 Patel Nagar, Kathua, who was involved in attempt to murder case of his daughter-in-law.
According to the police case, on April 30, 2013 the statement of Sunita Devi, wife of Balvinder Kumar was recorded in the hospital by the Kathua Police wherein she mentioned that she was set ablaze by her in-laws for want of dowry.
On her statement, a case under Section 498-A and 307 RPC was registered and the accused were taken into custody. On the completion of the investigation, the complicity of the accused Balvinder Singh (the husband of the complainant), Shiv Lal (her father-in-law) and Bholi Devi (her mother-in-law) was made out in the commission of the crime.
After hearing Advocate Parveen Gupta for the accused whereas PP Ravi Kumar Gupta for the State, Principal Sessions Judge observed, “bail is one of the most cherished privileges of a citizen in a civilized society. Arrest and detention are not meant to be punitive in nature for the simple reason that the accused person may eventually turn out to be innocent”.
“Bail rather than Jail” has emerged as a well-settled principle of modern law. Grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. However, the facts and circumstances of each case are to be considered by the courts in exercising the discretion of the grant of bail in favour of the accused”, Principal Sessions Judge said.
“Each and every case has to be tested on its merits taking into consideration the enormity of the charge, nature of accusation, severity of the punishment that conviction will entail, nature of evidence in support of the accusation, likelihood of the accused repeating the offence, security of the State, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of the crime on the society and so on and so forth”, the court observed.
“The crime alleged to have been committed by the accused is horrible. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant. The others acted in concert with him. Balvinder Kumar, the husband of the complainant is alleged to have sprinkled kerosene oil on his wife and set her ablaze. The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, is alleged to have stuffed her mouth when she raised a hue and cry”, the court said.
“This is what has been stated by her in the statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. Not only this. He (petitioner) is said to have left her room only after she made him and others to believe that she is dead. He was the protector of her life and limb. He was to safeguard her from any evil onslaught. Instead of doing this there is prima facie evidence to suggest that he committed the crime imputed to him”, the court further said.
“The petitioner was like her father. He was her trustee. He has violated the trust. It is a typical case of the fences swallowing the crops. It adds to the severity of the crime. His release on bail at this stage will therefore, be pre-mature. The right to conduct a free and fair trial is a valuable right of the State. It cannot be taken away on the oft-repeated ground of innocence in a case like the present one where the magnitude of the crime is grave”, Principal Sessions Judge said.
With these observations, Court rejected the bail application of the accused.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel