news details |
|
|
| After 10-day incarceration, High Court reinstates Babu Singh’s bail | | | 
Early Times Report
Srinagar, Oct 22: Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday reinstated bail for appellant after 10-day incarceration.
The bail of Jatinder Singh alias Babu Singh was revoked after he breached the condition that restricted him from leaving district Kathua.
Singh’s counsel filed an appeal before the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Sanjay Dhar.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant went to see his friend in Hoshiarpur who was not well and therefore his location was shown outside the precincts of the district Kathua, therefore, an application was moved by the prosecution before the learned trial court for cancellation of the bail as he had violated the aforementioned condition.
The counsel further submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had intimated the SSP concerned and also sent an e-mail in this regard; however, the same has been denied by the prosecution. “Upon the said application moved by the prosecution, the learned court by a speaking order cancelled the benefit of bail granted to the appellant,” the counsel submitted. “The appellant has ever misused the liberty that was granted to him but for not having adhered to one of its bail conditions which are strict. It is also not contended on behalf of the UT that the appellant did not return to Kathua District after he left the boundaries of the District. It is also not disputed that the appellant has not missed a single date of hearing,” Singh’s counsel submitted.
The division bench after hearing the appeal stated: “ The violation of the bail condition by the appellant cannot be approved by this Court, as it shows disregard with the directions passed by the learned court below. However, at the same time, this Court is cognizant with the fact that the appellant was g The bail of Jatinder Singh alias Babu Singh was revoked after he breached the condition that restricted him from leaving district Kathua.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant went to see his friend in Hoshiarpur who was unwell.
This Court is cognizant with the fact that the appellant was granted bail on merits after having been incarcerated for a little over two years.
This Court is of the opinion that for the violation, the appellant has been punished adequately by being in custody for ten days.
The division bench said, “ At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has also intimated this Court that the hearing of the case is at Jammu, for which the appellant has to attend the court hearing and therefore, has requested that the permission may be extended to Jammu Province. As far as this request is concerned, we feel it more appropriate if the learned court below decides this issue upon an application to be filed by the appellant, as the original conditions have been laid down by the learned court below, therefore, this Court is not in a position to appreciate as to what weighed in the mind of learned court below to have placed those terms and conditions and it must necessarily be the same court which must appreciate the change the conditions relating to territorial jurisdiction is concerned.”
“Under the circumstances, without any observations on the said prayer put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court grants liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application before the learned court below, which would be dealt with in accordance with law. Be that as it may, notwithstanding, the objections of the learned counsel for the UT,” the division bench maintained.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
