Mst. Parveena Begum Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- s.k. gupta, j.1. this application has been preferred for the grant of bail to one mst. parveena begum who is facing trial for the offences under sections 302/109 r.p.c pending at the stage of prosecution evidence in the court of learned additional sessions judge, doda.2. the accusations against the applicant-accused gatherable from the record depicted in narration are that on 3.9.2003 at 10 p.m with criminal intention to kill noor mohd. constable no. 809/sgc, the applicant in conspiracy with her husband ghulam mohd. alias gulla poured acid on the deceased as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on died in the hospital on 5.7.2003. a case under sections 302/109 r.p.c stood registered against the accused, applicant and her husband and investigation proceeded. on the conclusion of the investigation, the challan was presented against both the accused before the trial court, where the case after the frame of charge is pending at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.3. it is pertinent to point out that ghulam mohd. alias gulla, co-accused in the case who happens to be the husband of applicant-accused (mst. parveena begum) is absconding after the commission of offence and proceedings against him under section-512 cr.p.c have been initiated. the applicant seeks her release on bail on three fold grounds. firstly, that she is a woman with four children and there is no body to take care of them at home. secondly, the evidence collected and the material witnesses cited by the prosecution case have since been recorded. thirdly, that the prosecution has come out with three versions of the case contrary to each other and, thus, leaves a serious dent in the prosecution version which itself is a sufficient ground for the release of the applicant on bail.4. in resisting the bail of the applicant, objections came to be filed by the state in stating that after the dismissal of the 2nd bail application of the applicant by the ld. additional sessions judge doda vide order dated 17.5.2004, there is no change in the circumstances and, thus, entails rejection of this application for the bail of the applicant which is made after a gap of about two weeks of the dismissal of the earlier application. it was further pointed out that the prosecution has cited as many as 26 witnesses out of which only 08 witnesses have been recorded. there are still material witnesses which are to be produced in the case and in the event of release of the applicant on bail, there is every likelihood of her absconding on the ground of gravity of offences and severity of the punishment that may entail to conviction and further prevail and upon the witnesses and tampering the evidence, as the applicant's husband the co-accused in the case is still absconding, cannot be ruled out.5. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considered the rival contentions meticulously in context with the material on record.6. it is well settled proposition of law that court while granting or refusing the bail in non-bailable offence, relevant factors have to be considered, the nature and gravity of offences and the evidence found on record which incriminates the applicant in a large way. the jurisdiction to grant the bail has to be exercised on the basis of the settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. while granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment to which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or state and other similar considerations.7. undoubtedly, for the purpose of grant of bail, the legislature has used the words 'reasonable grounds for believing' instead of 'the evidence' which implies the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. it is not expected at this stage, to evaluate and estimate the evidence of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when the case is pending for recording the prosecution evidence and sizeable number of witnesses are yet to be examined. in other words, at the stage of granting the bail a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate determination of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. giving reasons is entirely different from discussing the merits or demerits.8. so far as the evidence till date recorded by the trial court is concerned, it pertains to the dying declaration made by the deceased disclosing the name of the accused-applicant (mst. parveena begum) who poured acid on the deceased, while he was returning on the day of occurrence at thathri.9. that apart, it is not in dispute that the earlier two bail applications of the applicant have been rejected and the third bail application is permissible only under the changed circumstances. it is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. in the absence of the changed circumstances between the second and third applications, the latter would be deemed to be seeking the review of the earlier judgments which is not permissible under criminal law. she has not been able to show any changed circumstances after the 2nd bail application stood rejected by the sessions judge, doda and before filing the present application after two weeks.10. it is the net result of all the considerations for and against the accused which must ultimately decide the matter for grant or refusal of bail to the accused facing trial in offence under section 302 r.p.c. many more considerations, however, can be added without any attempt to make list exhaustive. even the extreme youth or old age or sex of the accused may be a matter for consideration. again, the fact that the learned additional district judge doda, has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused must also be given due weightage. the detention during the trial cannot be said to be in the nature of the punishment.11. on a careful consideration of the entire catenation of the facts and circumstances discussed above, i do not find any special/exceptional circumstance for the release of the applicant on bail. her application being devoid of merit and bereft of any substance is hereby dismissed.