Prima Facie Reasons Reflecting Gravity Of Allegations Mandatory While Granting Bail In Heinous Crimes, Mechanical Bail Orders Impermissible: J&K&L High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, dismissed a bail application filed by multiple accused persons charged with murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, and related offences arising from a violent assault in which one person lost his life and another sustained serious injuries. The Court held that bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment cannot be granted without prima facie reasons reflecting the gravity of allegations, the state of evidence, and the overall stage of trial.
The accused persons were charged in connection with a violent incident in which a group of individuals, travelling together after attending a marriage function, were intercepted by the accused on a public road late at night. The attackers arrived in two vehicles, forcibly stopped the victims' car, and assaulted them with weapons including iron rods, bamboo sticks, and sharp-edged implements. Two of the victims were subsequently abducted and subjected to further assault. One victim succumbed to his injuries, while the other survived with serious wounds. Offences were registered under provisions relating to murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, rioting, and illegal possession of arms.
The accused sought bail on the ground that eyewitness testimony recorded before the trial court had not specifically established their individual roles in the offence. They further contended that the pace of trial was slow, with only a limited number of witnesses examined over a considerable period.
The prosecution and the victim's counsel opposed the application, asserting that the witnesses examined had made incriminating statements against the accused, and that the offences carried the gravest punishment under law.
On the legal standard applicable to consideration of bail applications, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pallu Yadav and another, wherein it was stated: "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."
The Court also referred to State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, wherein it was stated: "While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary."
The Court further referred to Rohit Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan, wherein the Supreme Court stated: "It is not necessary for a Court to assign elaborate reasons or engage in a roving inquiry as to the merits of the prosecution's case while granting bail, particularly, when the trial is at the initial stages and the allegations against the accused would not have been crystalised as such. Elaborate details cannot be recorded so as to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an Order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering with the evidence; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused."
On the merits of the bail claim, the Court recorded that the allegations against the petitioners were of a grave and serious nature, as they were accused of abducting the deceased and assaulting both him and the injured witness, resulting in the death of the former and serious injuries to the latter. The Court stated that when the case was examined on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it could not be said at that stage that there was a total absence of evidence. It further recorded that any contradictions in testimony could not be evaluated to determine culpability, as doing so would amount to prejudging the merits of the case.
On the question of delay in trial, the Court recorded that the defence counsel had filed the power of attorney only on 25.05.2023, and thereafter multiple adjournments were sought by the defence on 13.06.2023, 15.07.2023, and 26.08.2023, with the defence counsel also remaining absent on 05.08.2023. The Court stated that although only five witnesses had been examined so far, the established timeline suggested that the prosecution was not intentionally delaying the trial. It further noted that a key eyewitness, Manshu, who was present in the vehicle at the time of the incident, had not yet been examined.
On the right to speedy trial, the Court stated: "It is the duty of the learned trial court to ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted to either of the parties so as to ensure the right of the accused to have a speedy trial. The speedy trial is not only in the interest of the accused but also in the interest of public at large."
The Court held: "In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted to the parties and the trial is concluded expeditiously."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Waheed Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Deputy Advocate General ; Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Murad Ali and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-JMU:456
Case Number: Bail App No. 83/2025
Bench: Justice Rajnesh Oswal
