SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another on 30 June, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on 03.06.2021
Pronounced on 30.06.2021

Bail App No. 30/2021

Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh …Petitioner/Applicant(s)

Through :- Mr. Waseem Ramzan Lone, Advocate
v/s

Union Territory of JK and another
‘t
…..Respondent (s)

Through :- Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA
Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate for
complainant

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

1. The petitioner, who was apprehending arrest in FIR bearing No.

10/2021 registered with Police Station Beerwah, for commission of

offences under sections 366 and 109 IPC, vide order dated 18.03.2021

was granted interim bail with a direction to him to appear before the

Investigating Officer for three consecutive days. The said bail

application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the son of the

petitioner has solemnized the marriage with the girl against the wishes

of her parents and as a result of which the father of the said girl lodged

a false and frivolous FIR against the son of the petitioner and also

against the petitioner. The petitioner further stated in the bail

application that the son of the petitioner has filed a suit for restitution
2 Bail App No. 30/2021

of conjugal rights in the court of learned Munsiff, Beerwah against his

wife and her father and in support thereof, the petitioner has placed on

record a copy of the suit, copy of nikah nama and also the marriage

agreement dated 28.01.2021 executed between the son of the petitioner

and the daughter of the complainant.

2. Status report stands filed by the respondents in which it has been stated

that on 28.01.2021 one Ghulam Mohammad has lodged a written

complaint to the effect that his daughter aged about 22 years left her

home on 26.01.2021 and did not return back and during search he

came to know that his daughter has been kidnapped by one Shahid

Ahmad Sheikh and on the basis of information, FIR bearing No.

10/2021 for commission of offence under section 366 IPC was

registered and during the investigation statement of the witnesses were

recorded and section 109 IPC was also added. On 09.02.2021, Basit

Ahmad Sheikh was arrested under section 109 IPC who was later on

bailed out by the Court and on 18.02.2021 the abductee was recovered

from the possession of accused Shahid Ahmad Sheikh, i.e. son of the

petitioner. The Abductee was medically examined and as per the

medical certificate, section 376 IPC was proved and the statement of

the prosecutrix was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on

23.02.2021 and as per the statement, section 109 IPC was proved

against the Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, petitioner herein. It is further

stated that on 09.03.2021, the Police Party tried to apprehend the

petitioner but he fled away from spot and left his vehicle and the said
3 Bail App No. 30/2021

vehicle was seized and was put under safe custody within the Police

Station. It is also stated in the response that on 19.03.2021, the

petitioner approached the Police Station and produced the bail order

before the Investigating Officer and it is further stated that the main

accused is still at large and has not been apprehended.

3. On 23.03.2021, learned counsel for abductee sought time to file power

of attorney and also sought permission of this Court to intervene.

During the pendency of this bail application, the abductee also filed an

application for early hearing of bail application and placed on record

the FIR bearing No. 38/2021 of Police Station, Beerwah for

commission of offences under sections 341, 354 and 34 IPC lodged by

the prosecutrix against the petitioner and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the

petitioner has complied with directions of this Court and the petitioner

has been simply roped in by invoking section 109 IPC and there are no

allegations against the petitioner with regard to the commission of

offence under section 376 IPC.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents

has vehemently argued that the petitioner is involved in a heinous

offence, as such, he is not entitled to concession of bail.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently argued

that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the bail as when he

was enlarged on bail, he committed an offence for which FIR has been

lodged against the petitioner and others, the copy of which has been
4 Bail App No. 30/2021

placed on record. He vehemently argued that the petitioner does not

deserve to be enlarged on bail as the main accused is yet to be arrested.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that the

FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive so as to oppose the bail

application otherwise there is no truth in the same. He further

submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail in the said FIR also.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. From the record, it is evident that the girl/abductee stands recovered

and FIR bearing No. 38/2021 for commission of offences under

sections 341, 354 and 34 IPC was registered on 26.03.2021.

Investigating Officer has not approached this Court for cancellation of

interim bail granted to the petitioner because of the violation of any of

the condition imposed by the Court. The subsequent FIR lodged by the

prosecutrix is subject to investigation and at present there is no report

from the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is guilty of violating

the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail as such this

Court is of the considered opinion that the interim bail granted to the

petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2021 is required to be made absolute

in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Needless to mention

here that the abductee has not taken any stand with regard to the filing

of the suit and the documents annexed with the suit.

10. In view of the above, the interim bail granted to the petitioner is made

absolute on the same terms and conditions. However, the Investigating

Officer shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the
5 Bail App No. 30/2021

bail in the event of any violation of the terms and conditions of the bail

imposed by this Court while granting bail.

11. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE

JAMMU
30.06.2021
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation