Rukhsana Jabeen murder case: Court rejects accused husband’s bail

Rukhsana Jabeen murder case: Court rejects accused husband’s bail
Representational ImageFile/ GK

Srinagar: A court here has rejected the bail application of a policeman accused of murdering his wife by throttling her at paternal house at Batamaloo here in 2010.

Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, Sudhir Kumar Khajuria, rejecting the bail plea by Manzoor Ahmad Mir of Hyderpora Srinagar, said:

“In the present matter it is clear from the record that evidence is still going on and some of the witnesses are yet to be produced by the prosecution”.

As per prosecution, Mir managed entry into the paternal house of his estranged wife, Rukhsana Jabeen, on the intervening night of 28 and 29 September 2010 and throttled her as a result of which she died on the spot.

Mir’s counsel submitted before the court that the prosecution has taken more than a decade to examine its witnesses and it will take again a few years to record the statements of the remaining witnesses.

This, the counsel said, will adversely affect Mir’s health “as he is already facing different ailments in the jail as such there in every threat to his life.”

On the other hand, the prosecution objected the bail application on the grounds that Mir is facing trial in “willful” murder of his wife punishable under section 302 of RPC. “There are reasonable grounds on the basis of evidence already brought on record that accused is guilty of murder,” it said. The prosecution contended that “there is complete chain of evidence disclosed by the witnesses establishing the fact that accused has murdered his innocent wife at her parental home.”

Mir’s counsel however argued that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the commission of offence “because the evidence produced by it does not connect the accused with the commission of offence.”

“The present case is purely based on the circumstantial evidence as such every witness to the alleged occurrence is an important aspect in the instant case,” the court said after hearing both sides.

“The argument advanced by the counsel for the accused that evidence so far produced by the prosecution does not connect the accused with the commission of offences doesn't require appreciation unless whole prosecution evidence has been produced and recorded by the Court during the trial”.

Related Stories

No stories found.
Greater Kashmir
www.greaterkashmir.com