Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court: 55 Important Decisions Of 2021

As we step into the year 2022, LiveLaw brings to you a bunch of important decisions from the Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court of 2021. This digest includes 55 important orders and judgments spread across 10 categories.Criminal Cases 1. Keeping Accused In Custody As Offences Alleged To Be Committed Are 'Serious' Would Amount To Inflicting Pre-Trial Punishment: Jammu & Kashmir HC [Suraj Kumar v. UT of J&K] The Jammu and Kashmir High Court made it clear that an accused cannot be kept in custody merely for the reason that the offence alleged to have been committed by him is of serious nature. "Allowing the petitioner to remain in custody because of the reason that the offences alleged to have been committed by him are serious in nature, would amount to inflicting pre-trial punishment upon him," the Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said while allowing the bail application of one such accused. In the case at hand, the Petitioner-accused Suraj Kumar was booked under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, allegedly for being in possession of 500 gm contraband. The Trial Court had rejected his bail plea on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed him is serious in nature and affects society in general and the young generation. Stating that the Trial Court ought to have adopted a balanced approach in this case, the Single Judge remarked, "The discretion regarding grant or refusal of bail cannot be exercised against the petitioner on the basis of public sentiments or to teach him a lesson as his guilt is yet to be proved." 2. Even If Prosecutrix Is Quite Friendly With A Man, He Doesn't Get License To Establish Sexual Relations Without Her Consent: J&K High Court [Aman Sagotra v. UT of J&K] Noting that even if the prosecutrix was quite friendly with the petitioner for a long time, yet the same does not give a license to the petitioner/accused to have sexual relations with her, without her consent, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court recently denied the benefit of regular bail to petitioner for offence under Section 376 IPC. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar also observed that cases relating to the grant of bail in offence of rape are required to be approached differently as releasing of the accused on bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interests of the society. The prosecutrix, in this case, had lodged a complaint with Judicial Magistrate, Hiranagar alleging that while she was studying in 10th class, she developed acquaintance with the petitioner-accused, whereafter, he developed illicit relations with her against her will and also promised that he will marry her at an appropriate time. The complaint also stated that the petitioner accused had sexual relations with the complainant and he would threaten her with dire consequences in case she disclosed anything about this relationship to anybody. 3. 'Heinous Offence Against A Serving Law Officer': Jammu & Kashmir HC Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of 3 Convicts In Deputy Advocate General Murder Case [Vishal Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr.] A Division Bench comprising of Justices Tashi Rabstan and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani refused to suspend the sentence for the three convicts in the 2008 Deputy Advocate General Murder case. It said it cannot overlook the fact that the accused applicants have been held guilty and convicted for commission of a "heinous offence against the then serving Law Officer". It further noted that they were convicted "after a full dressed trial" for about twelve years by the Trial Court upon evaluation of ocular, circumstantial, medical and scientific evidence. It reiterated that the power of suspension of sentence by Appellate Court under Section 389 CrPC confers 'discretionary jurisdiction' and has to be "exercised sparingly". 4. Once Superior Officer Approves Closure, It Isn't Open For Officer Inferior In Rank To Direct Re-Investigation Of Case: Jammu & Kashmir High Court [Ajeet Chopra v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.] A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that once a superior officer of Police approves the closure of a case (as not admitted), it is not open to an officer who is inferior in rank to direct reinvestigation of the case. It added that if at all there was any scope for re-investigation of the case, the officer who is inferior in rank could have placed his opinion before his superior officer, instead of taking it upon himself and directing further reinvestigation of the case. With these observations, the High Court, quashed an order issued by Superintendent of Police, City South, Jammu directing for re-investigation in a case, which was already closed by his superior, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, and gave the liberty to the relevant authorities of the Police Department: "To take appropriate disciplinary action against respondent No.3 (Superintendent of...

Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court: 55 Important Decisions Of 2021

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags