Discretion In Bail Must Be Exercised Judiciously, Indicating Reasons In Serious Offences: J&K And Ladakh High Court Denies Bail To Murder Accused
Reiterating that grant of bail in serious offences cannot be a matter of course, and that courts must record reasons reflecting prima facie satisfaction, the High Court declined bail to accused persons charged with offences including murder, abduction, and attempt to murder.
The J&K and Ladakh High Court held that while a detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of bail, the Court must nevertheless indicate reasons for prima facie concluding whether bail is warranted, especially in cases involving grave offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The Court, while making these observations, denied bail to a man accused of abduction & murder.
The Court was hearing a bail application filed by the petitioners, who stand accused in a charge sheet pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, arising out of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 364, 427, 147 and 148 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act
A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, referring to the settled law on bail, extracted the principle laid down in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) and reiterated: “The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence”.
Background
As per the prosecution's case, the complainant alleged that on the date of the occurrence, the accused persons intercepted the vehicle of the deceased and others, hit it with load carriers, forcibly abducted them, and assaulted them with deadly weapons. During the investigation, injured persons were shifted to the hospital, and one of them succumbed to injuries, leading to the addition of Section 302 IPC
Statements of eye-witnesses were recorded, and several accused persons were arrested at different stages. Weapons were allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure statements. It was also noted that multiple accused individuals were still at large.
The petitioners contended that the eyewitnesses examined so far had not specifically linked them to the offence and that they had been in custody for over two and a half years. They further argued that only a few witnesses had been examined out of the total cited.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, submitting that the offences alleged carry punishment of death or life imprisonment and that incriminating statements had been made by key witnesses.
Court’s Observation
The Court reiterated that at the stage of bail, evidence cannot be appreciated in detail, but it can be examined for the limited purpose of determining whether incriminating material exists.
Referring to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Amarmani Tripathi, and Rohit Bishnoi, the Court noted that considerations such as the gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement, and potential impact on witnesses are relevant.
Upon perusal of the statements of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses, the Court observed that specific allegations had been made regarding assault by named accused persons. It held that contradictions or inconsistencies, if any, could not be evaluated at this stage, as doing so would amount to prejudging the case.
On the issue of delay, the Court examined the procedural history and found that multiple supplementary charge sheets were filed as additional accused were arrested, and that adjournments had also been sought at earlier stages. It concluded that the prosecution could not be said to be intentionally delaying the trial.
The Court further observed that a key eyewitness was yet to be examined and therefore, it could not be said that there was a total absence of evidence against the petitioners.
Conclusion
Holding that the allegations were grave in nature and that prima facie material existed against the petitioners, the High Court concluded that no case for the grant of bail was made out. The bail application was accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court was directed to ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted and that the trial is concluded expeditiously
Cause Title: Murad Ali and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:456)
Appearances
Petitioners: Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Waheed Choudhary, Advocate
Respondents: Vishal Bharti, Deputy Advocate General; Vasudha Sharma, Advocate