KEWAL KRISHAN TH. JYOTI SHARMA vs UT OF J AND K TH. INCHARGE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, RAJOURI
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Serial No. 69
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 147/2026
Reserved on: 27.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Uploaded on: 02.09.2026
Whether the operative part or
Full judgment is pronounced: Full
Kewal Krishan, Aged 57 years
S/o Sh. Behari Lal R/o Rajouri Tehsil &
District Rajouri presently lodged in District
Jail, Rajouri, Through his wife and next
friend Jyoti Sharma R/o Rajouri Tehsil and
District Rajouri.
….Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate
Mr. Amullaya Gupta, Advocate.
vs
1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir ,
.…. Respondent(s)
through In-charge/SHO Police Station,
Rajouri.
2. Neeraj Sharma, S/o Kalu Ram Sharma,
R/o Ward No. 5, Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri,
Jammu & Kashmir
Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1
Mr. Aseem K Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with
M/s Nishant Verma, Kashif Malik,
Sarfraz Ahmed & Anil Kumar, Advocates
for Complainant.
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
CORAM:
JUDGMENT
1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 314 of 2026 dated 12.06.2026,
registered at Police Station Rajouri for offences under
2 Bail App No. 147/2026
Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act,
1959.
2. It has been vehemently argued by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned
senior counsel for the applicant, that the applicant has been
wrongly and falsely implicated in FIR No. 314/2026 dated
12.06.2026 and that a bare perusal of the allegations
contained in the FIR would reveal that the same are general,
vague and omnibus in nature qua the applicant, relating
essentially to a fight between two groups, with no specific
overt act attributed to him. It is submitted that the applicant
was taken into custody on 15.06.2026 and has, since then,
remained incarcerated.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the applicant
had earlier approached the Court of learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Rajouri, seeking regular bail, which
application came to be dismissed vide order dated
11.07.2026, primarily on the ground that the injured persons
were still undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ludhiana.
4. According to learned senior counsel, both the injured
persons, namely, Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi, have
since been discharged from the hospital at Ludhiana and,
therefore, the circumstance which weighed with the learned
Court below while declining bail, namely, the critical medical
condition and continuing hospitalization of the injured
persons, no longer survives. It is, accordingly, submitted that
3 Bail App No. 147/2026
there has been a material change in circumstances
warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail.
5. In addition, it has been submitted that there is no material
on record to indicate any existing threat to the life of either of
the injured persons, nor is there, at this stage, any likelihood
of the case being converted into one involving culpable
homicide amounting to murder or otherwise. In the absence
of any such apprehension, it is contended that the primary
ground on which bail was declined to the applicant by the
learned Court below no longer survives and that his
continued incarceration is, therefore, neither warranted nor
sustainable in law.
6. It has also been submitted that, at the time of the alleged
occurrence, i.e., on 12.06.2026 at about 9:20 p.m., the
applicant was neither present at nor anywhere near the place
of occurrence and was, in fact, present and attending to his
regular business at his petrol pump. Learned senior counsel
has placed reliance upon the CCTV footage installed at the said
petrol pump, which, according to the applicant, captures his
continuous presence there during the relevant date and time of
the alleged occurrence. It is, therefore, contended that the said
footage prima facie supports the applicant's assertion regarding
his presence at the petrol pump and indicates that he could
not have participated in the alleged fight/assault as set up by
the prosecution.
4 Bail App No. 147/2026
7. It has been submitted that no specific overt act is attributed to
the applicant and that no recovery has been effected from him.
Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, has
further submitted that the co-accused are absconding and
have not been arrested so far, and that their non-arrest cannot,
by itself, be attributed to the applicant or constitute a ground
to deny him the concession of bail, as pre-trial incarceration
cannot be permitted to assume the character of punishment.
8. Learned senior counsel further submits that the law is well
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, while considering
an application for bail, the Court is essentially required to
examine:
(i) whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the
accused fleeing from justice,
(ii) whether there is credible material suggesting that
the accused would tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witnesses, and
(iii) whether there is a substantial risk of repetition of
the offence.
9. It is submitted that these considerations are required to be
assessed on the basis of material on record and not on mere
presumption or vague apprehension and none of the aforesaid
considerations stands satisfied so as to warrant the continued
detention of the applicant.
10. It is further submitted that the object of bail is to secure the
presence of the accused at the trial and that bail is the rule,
5 Bail App No. 147/2026
while jail is the exception. It is further submitted that pre-trial
detention ought not to be resorted to as a form of punishment.
11. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has undertaken that
the applicant shall abide by all such terms and conditions as
may be imposed by this Court while admitting him to bail.
12. Per contra, objections have been filed by Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia,
learned Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondent-
State, wherein it has been submitted that the remaining
accused persons have absconded and are presently evading
arrest. It is further submitted that the investigation in the
matter is still in progress and that substantial steps have
already been taken by the Investigating Officer.
13. It is further submitted that, on 15.06.2026, one of the
accused, namely, Kewal Kumar Sharma, son of Behari Lal,
resident of Dassal Jattan, Tehsil and District Rajouri, was
arrested in the instant case and police remand was obtained.
He is presently in judicial custody and lodged in District Jail,
Dhangri, Rajouri. The remaining accused persons, however,
have absconded after the commission of the offence and,
despite efforts made by the Investigating Agency to trace and
apprehend them, their whereabouts could not, so far, be
ascertained.
14. The respondent-State has further submitted that, as on date,
two accused persons, namely, (i) Kewal Kumar Sharma, son of
Behari Lal, resident of Dassal Jattan, Tehsil and District
6 Bail App No. 147/2026
Rajouri, and (ii) Ujjwal Tara, son of Vijay Kumar, resident of
Dassal, Rajouri, stand arrested and are presently in judicial
custody, whereas the arrest of the remaining accused persons
is still pending. It is also submitted that recovery of the
weapon(s) allegedly used in the commission of the offence is yet
to be effected and that such recovery may be possible upon
apprehension and arrest of the remaining accused persons,
who have absconded after registration of the FIR.
15. The respondent-State has further stated that the arrest of the
following accused persons is pending: (i) Ritish Saryal, son of
Kewal Kumar Sharma; (ii) Aryan, son of Jatinder Kumar; (iii)
Sahil Sharma, son of Som Raj; (iv) Arun Sharma @ Sanju
Saryal, son of Krishan Lal, all residents of Dassal Jattan, Tehsil
and District Rajouri; and (v) Suraj Sharma @ Happy Tara, son of
Som Raj, resident of Dhangri, Tehsil and District Rajouri.
16. It has also been submitted that the statement of another injured
person, namely, Nikhil Bakshi, is yet to be recorded as he is
stated to be still undergoing medical treatment and his
statement could not, so far, be recorded. According to the
respondent-State, after recording the statement of the said
injured person and obtaining the medical reports concerning the
injuries sustained by him, the investigation shall be completed
on merits and the charge-sheet shall, thereafter, be presented
before the competent Court for judicial determination.
7 Bail App No. 147/2026
17. The respondent-State has further brought on record the
antecedents of accused Kewal Kumar Sharma, son of Behari
Lal, resident of Dassal Jattan, Tehsil and District Rajouri,
stating that he has previously been involved in the following
cases:
(i) FIR No. 470/2012, under Sections 341/147/323
of the Ranbir Penal Code, the charge-sheet
whereof has been presented before the competent
Court and the matter is stated to be pending
judicial determination;
(ii) FIR No. 486/2012, under Sections 341/504/506
of the Ranbir Penal Code, the charge-sheet
whereof has been presented before the competent
Court and the matter is stated to be pending
judicial determination; and
(iii) FIR No. 35/2024, under Sections
353/332/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station Rajouri, which is
stated to be still under investigation.
18. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, the
respondent-State has opposed the prayer made by the
applicant and submitted that the investigation is still
underway, the remaining accused persons are absconding,
the statement of one of the injured persons is yet to be
recorded and certain recoveries are yet to be effected. It has,
accordingly, been urged that the prayer for bail be considered
having regard to the stage and progress of investigation and
the nature and gravity of the allegations involved. Learned
8 Bail App No. 147/2026
Government Advocate has, accordingly, prayed for dismissal
of the instant bail application.
19. In addition, an application has been preferred by Neeraj
Sharma, S/o Kalu Ram Sharma, R/o Ward No. 5, Jawahar
Nagar, District Rajouri, seeking his impleadment as a party
respondent in the instant bail application, being the
complainant in the FIR and the father of one of the injured
persons and uncle of the other.
20. Learned senior counsel Mr. Aseem Sawhney appearing for the
applicant in the impleadment application has submitted that,
being directly connected with the victims and the occurrence
in question, the applicant has a right to be heard in the
present proceedings.
21. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
„Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra‟, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
453 and „M/s J.K. International v. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi‟, (2001) 3 SCC 462 . Having regard to the nature of the
allegations, the status of the applicant as the complainant
and a close relative of the injured persons, and the legal
position relied upon, this Court finds the application for
impleadment to be maintainable and, accordingly, allows the
same. Neeraj Sharma is, thus, impleaded as respondent No. 2
in the instant bail application.
9 Bail App No. 147/2026
22. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned senior counsel for respondent
No. 2/complainant, who happens to be the complainant in the
FIR and the father of one of the victims and uncle of the other,
submits that, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, the
victims were attacked by the accused persons on 12.06.2026
at about 9:20 p.m. by blocking their path while they were
returning from their shop and, upon halting them, the
accused persons allegedly launched a brutal attack upon
them using hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons (Toka) and
other weapons, leaving them lying on the road. It has further
been submitted that, about two months prior to the present
occurrence, one of the victims, namely, Nikhil Bakshi, was
attacked by 15-16 persons, including some of the co-accused
in the present FIR, in respect of which FIR No. 181/2026 was
registered at Police Station Rajouri, and that, thereafter, the
victims had allegedly been receiving continuous threats and
warnings of dire consequences. It has also been submitted
that the victims sustained serious injuries in the alleged
attack, which, according to learned senior counsel, is also
borne out from the fact that the statement of one of the
injured persons has not yet been recorded.
23. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant
has further submitted that the applicant has not approached
this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material
facts concerning his criminal antecedents. According to
learned senior counsel, the applicant has failed to disclose
10 Bail App No. 147/2026
the registration of a third FIR bearing No. 35/2024. It is
submitted that, when this aspect was brought to the notice of
Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicant, he submitted that the applicant was not aware of
the registration of the said FIR. Learned senior counsel for
respondent No. 2 has, accordingly, contended that the non-
disclosure of the said FIR amounts to suppression of a
material fact before the Court.
24. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant
has, accordingly, opposed the prayer for bail, contending that
the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail,
particularly in view of the alleged suppression of material
facts and his criminal antecedents and has deliberately failed
to disclose material particulars relating to his previous
involvement in criminal cases.
25. It is specifically contended that, in paragraph No. 15 of the
bail application, the applicant has stated on oath that only
two FIRs stand registered against him. According to
respondent No. 2, however, the status report/objections filed
in the matter disclose his involvement in three FIRs. It is
alleged that the applicant has deliberately failed to disclose
FIR No. 35/2024, registered at Police Station Rajouri under
Sections 353/332/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and that such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of a
11 Bail App No. 147/2026
material fact before the Court with a view to securing the
relief of bail.
26. It is submitted that such suppression of material
antecedents, particularly while seeking discretionary relief
from the Court, is a circumstance which ought to weigh
against the applicant while considering his entitlement to
bail.
27. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant
has further contended that accused Ritish Saryal and Arun
Sharma @ Sanju Saryal, who are alleged to be involved in the
commission of the offence, are respectively the son and
nephew of the applicant and are still absconding. It is,
therefore, apprehended that, if the applicant is enlarged on
bail at this stage, there is a likelihood of his fleeing from
justice or otherwise violating the conditions of bail. It has also
been apprehended that the applicant may influence or
intimidate the witnesses and otherwise interfere with or
tamper with the evidence, particularly when the investigation
is still underway and the other accused persons remain at
large.
28. It is further contended that the release of the applicant at
this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation and may
also give rise to a sense of insecurity amongst the victims and
their family members, particularly in view of the
apprehension expressed by the complainant regarding the
12 Bail App No. 147/2026
possibility of the applicant influencing, intimidating or
threatening the witnesses.
29. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2, in opposing the
grant of bail, has submitted that while the right to personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is of
vital importance, the same cannot be considered in isolation
and has to be balanced against the nature and gravity of the
accusations, the material collected during investigation, the
criminal antecedents of the applicant and the larger societal
impact of the alleged offence. It is, accordingly, contended
that, having regard to the aforesaid factors, the applicant
does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail at this stage.
30. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent No.
2/complainant has prayed for dismissal of the instant bail
application, contending that the applicant is not entitled to
the discretionary relief of bail at the present stage of
investigation.
31. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the material
placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
prayer for bail cannot be examined in isolation from the
nature of the allegations, the stage and progress of
investigation, the material collected so far, the antecedents of
the applicant and the likelihood of the applicant's release
having a bearing upon the investigation or the safety of the
13 Bail App No. 147/2026
witnesses. The power to grant bail, though discretionary, is
required to be exercised judiciously and on the basis of the
facts and circumstances obtaining in each case.
32. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the applicant had
earlier approached the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Rajouri, seeking regular bail, which prayer came to be
declined vide order dated 11.07.2026. The present
application is, therefore, a successive application for bail and
the applicant must demonstrate a material change in the
circumstances which would justify taking a view different
from the one taken by the learned Court below. It is well
settled that though a successive bail application is
maintainable, the Court considering such an application is
required to bear in mind the reasons which weighed with the
Court while rejecting the earlier application and to ascertain
whether any substantial change in the factual or legal
position has occurred. The mere reiteration of grounds which
have already been considered and rejected cannot, by itself,
furnish a basis for a different conclusion.
33. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, the principal ground
projected by the applicant as constituting a change in
circumstances does not, at this stage, persuade this Court.
The applicant has sought reconsideration of his prayer for
bail primarily on the premise that both the injured persons,
namely, Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi, have been
14 Bail App No. 147/2026
discharged from the hospital at Ludhiana and that the
circumstance which weighed with the learned Court below
while declining bail has, therefore, ceased to exist. However,
the latest status report placed on record indicates that the
statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi is yet to be recorded and
that the medical reports concerning his injuries are still
awaited. Thus, the material circumstances which formed part
of the basis for declining bail earlier cannot be said to have
completely lost their relevance. The alleged change in
circumstances, therefore, does not, by itself, justify a different
view at this stage.
34. Another significant circumstance which weighs against the
applicant is the stage of investigation. The material placed
before this Court indicates that the investigation is yet at its
nascent stage. Five of the accused persons are stated to be
absconding; the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi is yet to
be recorded; the medical reports concerning the injuries
sustained by him are awaited; and the weapons allegedly
used in the commission of the offence have not yet been
recovered. The Investigating Agency has also placed on record
the seizure of the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of
the offence and the material collected through statements of
witnesses and analysis of Call Detail Records. Thus, the
investigation cannot, at this stage, be said to have reached a
stage where the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution
can be brushed aside as vague or speculative.
15 Bail App No. 147/2026
35. The nature and manner of the alleged occurrence also cannot
be lost sight of. The prosecution case is that the victims were
intercepted while returning from their shop and were allegedly
subjected to a concerted assault by several persons using
hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons and other weapons,
resulting in serious injuries. The allegations are not, at this
stage, liable to be characterized as vague or inherently
improbable, particularly when the investigation has yielded
statements of witnesses, seizure of the vehicle allegedly used in
the occurrence and other material which is still under
investigation. This Court is conscious that, at the stage of bail,
it is neither permissible nor desirable to undertake a
meticulous examination of the evidence or to record findings
which may prejudice the trial. At the same time, the Court
cannot altogether disregard the prima facie material placed on
record.
36. The background preceding the present occurrence is also a
circumstance which cannot be altogether ignored at this stage.
It is the case of the complainant that, about two months prior
to the present occurrence, one of the injured persons, namely,
Nikhil Bakshi, had allegedly been attacked by 15-16 persons,
in connection with which FIR No. 181/2026 came to be
registered at Police Station Rajouri under Sections 333, 115(2),
191(2) & 304 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It is
specifically alleged that Ritish Saryal, son of the applicant, and
some other accused persons were involved in the said
16 Bail App No. 147/2026
occurrence and are also accused in the present FIR. It is
further alleged that, following the said incident, the victims had
been receiving continuous threats and warnings of dire
consequences. Though the correctness and evidentiary value of
these allegations are matters to be examined during the course
of investigation and trial, the said circumstances, when
considered along with the allegations in the present case,
cannot be completely disregarded while assessing the
apprehension expressed by the complainant regarding the
safety of the victims and the possibility of the witnesses being
influenced or intimidated. The fact that the statement of one of
the injured persons is yet to be recorded also assumes
relevance at this stage, particularly in the context of the
apprehension expressed regarding the fair and unhindered
progress of the investigation.
37. The alleged non-disclosure of FIR No. 35/2024 in the bail
application also assumes significance. The applicant has, in
paragraph No. 15 of the bail application, disclosed two earlier
FIRs, while the status report placed before the Court refers to
FIR No. 35/2024 as well. The explanation tendered on behalf of
the applicant is that he was not aware of the registration of the
said FIR. Whether such omission was deliberate or otherwise is
not necessary to be conclusively determined at this stage. What
remains material is that the bail application did not contain a
complete disclosure of the criminal cases stated by the
Investigating Agency to be pending against the applicant. This
17 Bail App No. 147/2026
incomplete disclosure of the criminal antecedents, therefore,
constitutes an additional circumstance which weighs against
the applicant.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in „Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. &
Ors‟, 2026 INSC 144, has recently reiterated the obligation of
an applicant seeking bail to make a full and candid disclosure
of material particulars, including criminal antecedents. Such
non-disclosure is, therefore, a relevant circumstance while
assessing the applicant's entitlement to discretionary relief. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“42. It has been consistently emphasized by this Court that an
accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to
make a fair, complete and (2023) 6 SCC 144 candid disclosure of all
material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial
discretion. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of
such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and
strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.”
39. The criminal antecedents of the applicant also assume
significance in the present case. The status report records his
involvement in three earlier FIRs, two of which are stated to be
pending before the competent Court and one is stated to be
under investigation. In this context, the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in , (2016)
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
15 SCC 422, assume relevance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed:
“15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that
the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the
18 Bail App No. 147/2026
accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of
parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we
have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is
not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature
and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as
jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the
effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law
expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of
accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on
exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.”
40. The aforesaid principle assumes particular significance in the
present case, where the antecedents of the applicant are
required to be considered alongside the nature of the
allegations in the present FIR and the stage of investigation.
41. In the backdrop of the facts noticed hereinabove, the question
as to whether the applicant deserves the discretionary relief of
bail has to be examined by keeping in view not only the prima
facie material concerning his alleged involvement, but also the
nature and gravity of the accusations, his criminal
antecedents, the stage of investigation, the fact that several co-
accused are still absconding, the recovery of the alleged
weapons is yet to be effected, and the possibility of his release
having a bearing upon the witnesses and the course of
investigation. These considerations assume particular
significance in the present case, having regard to the manner in
which the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place and
the material which has surfaced during investigation. The
settled parameters governing the exercise of discretion in such
matters may, therefore, be noticed.
19 Bail App No. 147/2026
42. The principles governing grant or refusal of bail are no longer
res integra . In “State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi”,
(2005) 8 SCC 21 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while laying
down the parameters governing consideration of bail
applications, observed as under:-
“It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application
for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii)
nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or
fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position
and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi
2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi
Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that
accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a
ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his
mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is
material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or
tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.”
43. In „Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.‟,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
that the discretion in the matter of grant of bail is required to
be exercised judiciously, cautiously and in accordance with the
settled parameters governing such exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
“It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order
passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
20 Bail App No. 147/2026
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on
the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors
to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released
on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail.”
44. The aforesaid principles make it abundantly clear that while
considering a prayer for bail, the Court is required to examine,
inter alia, the existence of a prima facie case, the nature and
gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment
prescribed, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses
or obstructing the course of justice and the larger interest of
ensuring a fair trial.
45. Applying the aforesaid parameters to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that several considerations operate
against the applicant. The allegations relate to a concerted
and allegedly pre-planned assault upon two persons,
involving the use of sharp-edged weapons resulting in serious
injuries. The gravity of the allegations, coupled with the
material collected during investigation, therefore, cannot be
treated as a mere circumstance of accusation at this stage.
21 Bail App No. 147/2026
This is also required to be viewed in the background of the
allegation that, approximately two months prior to the
present occurrence, one of the injured persons had been
subjected to another attack involving some of the co-accused
in the present FIR and that threats had allegedly continued
thereafter. The nature of the alleged occurrence and the
punishment prescribed for the offences alleged are relevant
considerations which weigh against the applicant.
46. Besides, the applicant, being a former Sarpanch and having
regard to his standing in the locality, occupies a position
where his conduct and actions may have a direct bearing on
the society at large. In view of his standing in the locality and
his criminal antecedents, his release at this stage gives rise to
a reasonable apprehension that he may interfere with the
ongoing investigation, tamper with the evidence, or influence
and intimidate the witnesses, thereby causing a sense of
insecurity among the victims and their family members and
adversely affecting not only the fair course of the
investigation and the administration of criminal justice but
also the sense of security and confidence of the society at
large.
47. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding
the applicant's possible interference with the investigation
and the witnesses also cannot, in the facts of the present
case, be brushed aside as a mere vague or fanciful
apprehension. The complainant has specifically referred to
22 Bail App No. 147/2026
an earlier attack upon one of the injured persons
approximately two months prior to the present occurrence,
allegedly involving some of the co-accused in the present
FIR, followed by continuous threats and warnings of dire
consequences. Though these allegations are also subject to
investigation and adjudication in accordance with law, they
constitute a relevant circumstance while assessing the
apprehension expressed by the victims and their family
members. Five co-accused are still absconding, one of the
injured persons is yet to be examined and recovery of the
weapons allegedly used in the occurrence remains pending.
In such circumstances, the possibility of the applicant
influencing the witnesses, hampering the investigation or
otherwise obstructing the course of justice is a relevant
consideration while deciding whether he should be permitted
to remain at large.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors.
v. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.‟, (2024) 10 SCC 753 , has
reiterated that the Court, while considering grant of bail, is
required to take into account the nature of the accusation, the
role attributed to the accused, the possibility of tampering with
the evidence or witnesses, the antecedents of the accused and
the flight risk. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“19. Courts while granting bail are required to consider relevant
factors such as nature of the accusation, role ascribed to the
accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with the
evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk et al. Speaking
through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v Waseem,
23 Bail App No. 147/2026
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, apropos relevant parameters for
granting bail, observed:
“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail.”
49. The same principle finds further support from ‘ Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr.‟, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each
case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the
court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing
of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes
of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable
grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether
there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution
will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the
24 Bail App No. 147/2026
charge. It is not excepted , at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
50. In the present case, the material placed before this Court
discloses a prima facie case requiring further investigation. The
nature of the accusations, the material collected so far, the
antecedents of the applicant, the pending arrest of several co-
accused, the apprehension of interference with witnesses and the
larger interest of ensuring an unhindered investigation, when
considered cumulatively, do not justify the applicant's release at
this stage.
51. The applicant's reliance upon the CCTV footage installed at the
petrol pump also does not persuade this Court to take a
different view at this stage. The said footage is relied upon to
support the applicant's assertion regarding his presence at the
petrol pump at the relevant time. However, its evidentiary
value, authenticity, continuity and ultimate effect upon the
prosecution case would require appreciation in the light of the
entire evidence. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction at the
stage of bail, cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of such
material or conclusively determine the applicant's assertion
regarding his absence from the place of occurrence. The effect
of the CCTV footage is, therefore, best left for consideration
during trial.
52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia”, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , has held that while considering
bail, the Court need not undertake a detailed analysis of the
25 Bail App No. 147/2026
evidence but must examine whether a prima facie case exists.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the
grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous
factors, among which the nature of the offence, the
severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of
the involvement of the accused are important. No
straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an
application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the
stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of
bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed
analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the
accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court
is required to examine whether there is a prima facie
or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence and on a balance of the
considerations involved, the continued custody of the
accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice
system…”
53. Thus, at the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not
expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the
evidence or record findings on the merits of the prosecution
case. The enquiry is confined to examining whether the
material placed on record discloses a prima facie case and
whether the larger interests of justice warrant the continued
custody or release of the accused.
54. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated in “Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav”, (2004) 7
SCC 528, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while
dealing with bail in serious offences, the Court must exercise
its discretion judiciously and record reasons indicating its
prima facie satisfaction before granting or refusing bail.
26 Bail App No. 147/2026
55. While the personal liberty of an individual is undoubtedly a
valuable and fundamental right, the same cannot be
considered in isolation while examining a prayer for bail. The
Court is required to balance such liberty against the nature
and gravity of the accusations and the material brought on
record, so as to arrive at a prima facie view without
undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence. In the
present case, the allegations relate to a serious and allegedly
pre-planned assault involving the use of weapons, and the
material collected during the course of investigation, at this
stage, does not permit the accusations to be regarded as false,
frivolous or vexatious. The exercise of discretion, therefore, has
to be based upon a due consideration of the relevant facts and
circumstances bearing upon the entitlement of the applicant to
bail.
56. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in „Brijmani Devi v. Pappu
Kumar‟, (2022) 4 SCC 497, has emphasized that while
personal liberty is an invaluable right, the Court must also
have regard to the serious nature of the accusations, the
material brought on record, the criminal antecedents of the
accused and the nature of punishment that may follow upon
conviction. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is
reproduced as under:
“25. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is
an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application
for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the
27 Bail App No. 147/2026
accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in
the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous
or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought
on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion.
While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie
conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after
having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due
consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of
punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence/s
alleged against an accused.”
57. Thus, while considering a prayer for bail, the Court is required
to balance the liberty of the accused with the larger interest of
society and the fair administration of criminal justice. The
nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the
punishment prescribed, the existence of a prima facie case, and
the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or otherwise
obstructing the course of justice are among the relevant
considerations which must guide the exercise of judicial
discretion.
CONCLUSION:
58. Viewed cumulatively, this Court finds that the circumstances
which weighed with the learned Court below have not
undergone such a material change as would justify a different
conclusion and the release of the applicant at this stage. The
allegations concern a serious and allegedly pre-planned assault
involving several accused persons and the use of weapons; the
investigation is yet to be completed; five accused persons are
still absconding; the statement of one of the injured persons is
28 Bail App No. 147/2026
yet to be recorded; the medical material relating to his injuries
is awaited; the weapons allegedly used in the occurrence have
not yet been recovered; and the applicant's antecedents,
coupled with the incomplete disclosure thereof in the bail
application, also weigh against the exercise of discretion in his
favour. The apprehension of the prosecution that his release
may have a bearing upon the remaining investigation and the
witnesses, therefore, cannot be said to be without basis.
59. This Court is conscious that personal liberty is a valuable
constitutional right and that pre-trial incarceration cannot be
permitted to become punitive in character. However, the grant
of bail is not to be made as a matter of course, and the
discretion has to be exercised upon a judicious assessment of
the competing considerations. In the present case, the gravity
and manner of the alleged occurrence, the prima facie material
collected during investigation, the antecedents of the applicant,
the incomplete investigation and the possibility of interference
with the witnesses and evidence, when considered
cumulatively, outweigh the considerations advanced on behalf
of the applicant.
60. Consequently, having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicant has failed to make out a
case for grant of regular bail. The instant bail application is,
accordingly, dismissed .
29 Bail App No. 147/2026
61 It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. The learned Trial
Court shall consider the matter independently, on the basis of
the evidence brought on record before it and in accordance
with law.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Jammu
01.09.2026
Tarun/Vijay
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Vijay Kumar
2026.09.02 13:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document