Precious Kashmir News
Srinagar, Aug 26: Courts should be too slow to thrive the second application of a party for anticipatory bail where the earlier one has been rejected and there is no substantial change of circumstance or event, the High Court has said.
“Further repetition of prayer for anticipatory bail after rejection by the competent Court after invoking the power of review of the decision of the earlier Court may lead to judicial anarchy about which caution has been sounded by the Apex Court of the country in umpteen judicial dictums,” a bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said while rejecting a bail application by one Laiq Parvez.
The applicant was seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with case bearing FIR No. (0/2020), registered by Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, South Kashmir, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
Pervez claimed to have retired from Government service upon reaching the age of superannuation and rendering satisfactory service spanning over two decades on 30 of April last year as Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development, Senior Scale KAS Cadre post. He stated that after a period of six months from the date of retirement, a questionnaire with respect to verification was served on him by the Inquiry Officer, Anti- Corruption Bureau, South Kashmir, regarding allotments of land in favour of various unit holders during his posting as General Manger District Industries Centre Pulwama from June 2017 to ending February 2018.
The government said through B. A. Dar, the Senior Additional Advocate General, submitted that the case registered against Pervez is in its initial stage and a reasonable time was required for the concerned agency to investigate the matter.
“It is settled principle of law in the process of granting bail that the Court concerned should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail will not be in a position to tamper with evidence,” the court further observed. “When allegations of tampering of evidence are made, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself as to whether those allegations have basis and if the allegations are not found to be concocted it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in enlarging the accused on bail. This, if allowed, will encourage the litigant to make half a dozen applications on the same point without any new factor having arisen after the first one was rejected,” the court added. (GNS)