Sr. No. 02 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bail App No. 129/2023 c/w CRM (M) No. 985/2022 Nahid Mir and another …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Advocate V/s UT of J&K …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER 02.06.2025 Bail App No. 129/2023 01. The applicants seek grant of bail in case FIR No. 0274/2022, dated 28.10.2022, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 382, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. 02. The marriage between the complainant and applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 05.09.2006. The complainant during the subsistence of this marriage, contracted a second marriage with one Naina Banoo without obtaining the consent of petitioner No. 1. The applicant No. 1, requested the complainant to return her jewellery and other gift items, but the complainant flatly refused to return the same. Consequently, the applicant No. 1 filed a criminal complaint against the complainant before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (PT&E), Srinagar, wherein, the learned Magistrate directed an investigation. It is submitted that, as a counterblast to the aforesaid complaint, on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, FIR No. 274/2022 was lodged against the applicants. Bail App No. 129/2023 03. No objections have been filed by the respondents despite numerous opportunities being granted to them. 04. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the parameters for grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab”, (1980) SCC (Cri) 465, which are as under: - "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end. It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.” 05. Similarly, in “Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI”, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of bail in the following terms: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ''necessity'' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before Bail App No. 129/2023 conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 06. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have complied with all the conditions imposed while granting interim bail in anticipation of arrest vide order dated 10.05.2023 and have been consistently appearing before the trial Court. 07. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application of applicants is dismissed, while the interim bail granted vide order dated 10.05.2023 to applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is made absolute. 08. The bail application shall stand disposed of. CRM (M) No. 985/2022 01. Status report be filed by the next date of hearing. 02. List on 15.07.2025 03. Meanwhile interim direction, if any, shall continue. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu: 02.06.2025 Vishal Khajuria