The Jammu And Kashmir High Court in the case Ravi Kumar Vs UT of Jammu And Kashmir observed and has asked that simply because the prosecutrix keeps herself away from appearing in court, the petition for bail cannot be deferred indefinitely. Therefore, the court granted bail to the accused in the case of POSCO.
The bench headed by Justice Sanjay Dhar in the case observed that it being not the case of the prosecution that trial is being delayed because of the conduct of the accused but it is a case where the victim is avoiding on order to step into the witness box and the said conduct of the victim being sufficient to entitle the petitioner for concession of bail.
In the present case, an application was filed before the court wherein seeking bail in the case arising from the offences of kidnapping and sexual assault. Thus, the accused was arrested in the month of April, 2020 and the trial court rejected his first bail application on the ground that the statement of the victim remained to be recorded.
However, the High Court rejected the bail application moved by the petitioner but provided him with the opportunity to approach the trial court once more and the trial court rejected the first bail application moved by him on the ground that the statement of the victim remained to be recorded.
The bench of Justice Dhar in the case noted that the maximum sentence for the offence with which the petitioner is being charged carries a sentence of maximum 5 years and accused has to spend more than three years in the custody as on the date.
It has also been stated that as per Section 436-A makes it that an undertrial prisoner cannot be detained for a period more than one-half of the maximum punishment for the period of imprisonment specified in the offence in which he has been taken into custody and also upon the expiry of the said period, thus, the court needs to release him on the personal bond with or without sureties.
The court in the case observed and has stated that this cannot be the for denying the statutory right that has accrued in favour of the petitioner by spending more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for offence as stated under section 8 of the POCSO Act.
