Successful Prosecution Is Based Upon Quality Of Police Investigation, Not Length Of Continuing Custody Of Accused: JKL High Court On Bail
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that a successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is not based on the length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation. A bench comprising Justice Rahul Bharti observed, "A successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is based upon quality of...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that a successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is not based on the length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation.
A bench comprising Justice Rahul Bharti observed,
"A successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is based upon quality of police investigation with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case attending the commission of offences and not by length of continuing custody of a suspect or an accused during the course of investigation. An investigation authority is bound to show and demonstrate on factual basis as to how if an accused is admitted to bail in a case before finalization of police investigation and consequent presentation of police report under section 173 Cr. P.C, 1973, the investigation work is likely to suffer hurdles/obstacles to the prejudice of taking the investigation to the truth of the matter".
The observations were made by the court while hearing a bail application in an FIR lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after the petitioner (posted as Tehsildar Bahu, Jammu) was allegedly caught red handed accepting bribe amounting to Rs. 50,000 last month.
Contesting the bail application, counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau argued that apart from the allegations in the instant FIR the petitioner is also under enquiry for disproportionate assets and hence the application merits dismissal.
Adjudicating upon the matter, Justice Bharti observed that it is not understandable as to how in the FIR relating to trap case the fact of enquiry against the petitioner for alleged disproportionate assets has any bearing except as an attempt to put off the indulgence of the Court in considering the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner.
Deliberating further on the matter the bench pointed that the petitioner has suffered police custody tenure and is now in judicial custody and the investigation with respect to the trap led incident is very specific to the occasion in which the petitioner came to be allegedly found demanding and accepting the alleged bribe amount. The custody of an accused before the trial of the case is not meant to be of and for punitive purpose but only for the purpose of serving the investigation of the case, which in the present case as per the fresh objections filed on behalf of the respondent by the recall of the objections first filed in the case, is over, the bench underscored.
"This Court sees no justification for further custody of the petitioner which is not going to serve in any manner whatsoever the investigation official of the case by the Investigating Authority of the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajouri (Camp Jammu). The petitioner is a public servant and, as such, there is no question of his escaping from the reach of law or tempering with the evidence in the case", said the court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion the bench admitted the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.
Case Title : Rohit Sharma Vs State of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 233
Coram : Justice Rahul Bharti
Counsel For Petitioner : Mr Sunil Sethi Sr Adv
Counsel For Respondent : Mrs Monika Kohli Sr AAG