A Sessions Court of Jammu and Kashmir has granted bail to a person, accused of promoting enmity for his comments at a Janata Darbaar that he has no expectations from non-local officers posted in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Judicial Magistrate Fakhr Un Nissa passed this order, while hearing a bail Application filed by Sajad Ahmad Sofi.
The Advocate for the Applicant submitted that he has been implicated in a false and frivolous case, of which he has no knowledge. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and was never involved in any anti-social activity. He applicant is the source of earning for his family and if he will not be released on bail, his family will come on road and will die of starvation, added the Advocate.
Further, the lawyer ensured that Sofi will not hamper with or tamper the evidence, if released on bail.
The Court stated that a bare perusal of the report submitted by Police Station Safapora suggests in clear terms about the involvement of the accused under Section 153‐A (promoting enmity, disharmony) IPC.
The prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that :
- The offence in which the above named accused is involved are grave and heinous in nature, as such above named accused is not entitled to the concession of bail as such the above mentioned motion seeking enlargement of above to bail merits an outright rejections
- That there is credible and cogent evidence available vis-à-vis involvement of above named accused in the commission of aforesaid crime, as such, the evidence gathered by the investigating agency till date deserves to be preserved till commencement of regular trail before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as such the above captioned application for bail deserves to be rejected.
- That the offence in which the accused is involved are non-bail able in nature as such the accused not entitled to bail as a matter of right. As such the application for bail may be rejected.
- That the investigation of the case is incomplete and the concession of bail if exercised in favour of the accused will have the adverse effect on the investigation.
- That the accused has committed offences are anti-social in nature and are having serious ramifications as the same are running contrary of the larger public interests as such in order to protect the larger public interests the motion for enlargement of accused on bail deserve to be rejected.
The Additional Public Prosecutor resisted the application on the ground that the top court of the country, in a catena of authorities, has laid down that while dealing with the applications for bail in non-bailable offences, the Courts shall take into consideration gravity of offence, severity of punishment, which it carries and as the accused is involved in the commission of serious, grave offences which carry severe punishment as such, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
The Counsel for the applicant contended that bail should not be withheld as a punishment if, after taking into consideration other factors, the accused is entitled to the grant of bail.
The Court said that the needless to mention that bail is a rule and its rejection is an exception. Bail in non-bailable crime cannot be refused without assigning strong reason although bail is a discretion of the court and discretion of bail cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
The Court further said that the allegedly committed crime attributed to the applicant does not carry life imprisonment or death penalty debarring the Court to exercise discretion of bail in favour of the applicant. As such, the Court has a sufficient reason to exercise discretion of bail in favour of the applicant.
“Therefore, for the given reasons, without going into the depth of the merits of the case, the application is allowed and the accused person is admitted to interim bail up to June 21, provided he will furnish surety and personal bonds amounting to Rs 30,000 before the SHO concerned”, the Court ordered.