Delay During COVID-Era Cannot Be Attributed To Court Or Prosecution: J&K And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Bail Plea In Murder Case

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by two accused facing trial for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC in connection with allegations that the deceased was administered poison pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. The petitioners contended that they had remained in custody for more than five years and that the prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, upon examining the material placed on the record, noted: “The minutes of the proceedings of the learned trial court would reveal that physical functioning of the courts was not taking place and in the absence of robust and reliable means of internet connectivity, the proceedings were being conducted through WhatsApp video calls. In these circumstances, the physical production and even virtual production of the accused before the trial court was seriously hampered for a pretty long time”.

However, while stating that “the proceedings of the trial court would reveal that after the Covid Pandemic was over, the trial has progressed at a reasonable pace and most of the prosecution witnesses stand already examined”, the Bench held that “it cannot be stated that there has been any delay in progress of the trial which can be attributed either to the court below or to the prosecution”, and hence “it cannot be stated that the right of speedy trial of the petitioners stands violated in the instant case”.

Advocate Syed Aabid Parvez appeared for the petitioners, while Government Advocate Jahingeer Dar appeared for the respondents.

Background

According to the prosecution, police received information in January 2020 regarding an unidentified person lying unconscious near a bridge at Bela Reshiwari. The person was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. During the investigation, the deceased was identified, and the postmortem report allegedly revealed death due to poisoning.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been in a relationship with a woman for several years and that certain family members opposed the relationship. According to the prosecution's case, the accused persons conspired to administer poison to the deceased after luring him to a residence on the assurance that his marriage would be solemnised.

The investigating agency further alleged that immediately before his death, the deceased contacted a prosecution witness and asked him to record a conversation in which the deceased allegedly named the petitioners and other accused persons as being responsible for poisoning him.

After investigation, the challan was filed before the trial court in April 2020, and charges under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC were framed in July 2021.

Seeking bail, the petitioners argued that forensic evidence contradicted the prosecution's case and that out of 33 listed witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses had already been examined without specifically attributing any overt role to them.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of bail in serious offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Referring to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (2004), the Court observed that in offences punishable with a death sentence or life imprisonment, bail cannot be granted where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of such an offence.

The Court also referred to State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) and observed that while detailed examination of evidence must be avoided at the bail stage, the Court is nevertheless required to briefly examine whether a prima facie case exists.

Examining the prosecution evidence, the Court noted that prosecution witnesses Altaf Hussain and Mohammad Rafiq had prima facie supported the prosecution case by stating that the deceased had contacted Altaf Hussain immediately before his death and asked him to record a conversation. According to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased stated during the conversation that he had been “tricked by the petitioners” and poisoned.

The Court further noted that the investigating agency had seized the mobile phone containing the recorded conversation and that the CFSL report indicated there was “no editing in the conversation.”

Referring to the evidentiary value of the statement allegedly made by the deceased immediately before death, the Court observed: “The statement made by the deceased immediately before his death, which relates to the circumstances pertaining to his death, becomes admissible in evidence.”

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that contradictions in witness statements demolished the prosecution's case and held that at the stage of bail, it was “not open to this Court to critically analyse their statements.”

On the question of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration, the Court noted that the challan had been filed during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic and that court functioning was severely disrupted. The Bench observed: “In these circumstances, the physical production and even virtual production of the accused before the trial court was seriously hampered for a pretty long time, as a result whereof, the formal charges against the accused could be framed only on 06.07.2021, which is more than one year after the presentation of challan.”

The Court further noted that for nearly two years after the filing of the challan, there was “hardly any progress in the trial of the case” owing to the extraordinary situation prevailing during the pandemic.

However, after normal court functioning resumed, the trial proceeded at a “reasonable pace”, and most prosecution witnesses, including material witnesses, had already been examined. The Court observed that only a few formal witnesses remained to be examined.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the delay could not be attributed either to the prosecution or to the trial court, while adding that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be stated that the right of speedy trial of the petitioners stands violated in the instant case.

Conclusion

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the prosecution evidence, including the recorded conversation allegedly made by the deceased immediately before his death, disclosed prima facie material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.

The Court further held that although the petitioners had remained incarcerated for more than five years, the delay in trial during the Covid-19 pandemic could not be treated as a violation of their right to speedy trial since court functioning itself had been severely disrupted and the trial had thereafter progressed at a reasonable pace.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail application while directing the trial court to expedite disposal of the challan at the earliest.

Cause Title: Basharat Ahmad Abbasi Alias Bashir And Another v. UT of J&K And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-SGR:99)

Click here to read/download Judgment