Sajad Ahmad Ahwan vs State Of J&K And Others

1) The petitioner has challenged order dated 13.11.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kupwara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to respondent No.4 in a case arising out of FIR No.11/2018 for offence under Section 376 RPC of Police Station, Karnah. A further direction has been sought upon respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against the respondent No.3 for misusing his official position as Sub Inspector of J&K Police.

2) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was involved in case FIR No.11/2018 of Police Station, Karnah, for offence under Section 376 RPC. The allegation in the FIR was that the respondent No.4, who happened to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner, had committed rape upon her. Charge sheet against the respondent No.4 came to be filed before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, and the said Court vide its order dated 13.11.2018, admitted respondent No.4 to bail. According to the petitioner, though material witnesses have deposed against the respondent No.4 in their statements recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C during the investigation of the case yet there is every apprehension that respondent No.4 with the aid and assistance of respondent No.3 would win over the witnesses and defeat the case of the prosecution.

3) On the basis of aforesaid assertions, the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of respondent No.4 and an action against the respondent No.3 along with a direction for ensuring that the evidence of the prosecution is not tampered with.

4) Reply to the petition has been filed by the official respondents. In the said reply, it has been submitted that the bail application moved by respondent No.4 was strenuously resisted by the prosecution but the learned trial court vide the impugned order extended the concession of bail in favour of the said respondent. It has been averred that the prosecuting agency is performing its duty impartially and without any interference of respondent No.3. It is also contended that no person has approached the police authorities with regard to any complaint pertaining to threat to the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail granted to respondent No.4 by the learned trial court stands cancelled in terms of the orders passed by the said court somewhere in the month of February/March, 2019. In view of this position, the petition so far as it relates to the relief pertaining to setting aside of impugned order dated 13.11.2018 is concerned, the same has been rendered infructuous.

7) So far as the apprehension of the petitioner that prosecuting agency is being influenced or pressurized by respondent No.3 is concerned, the said assertion has been denied by the official respondents.

8) Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to ensure fair and impartial trial of the case. The learned trial court shall take all necessary steps as are available under law to protect the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses and in this regard, the respondent No.1 and 2 shall extend all possible cooperation to the learned trial court.

9) Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and compliance.