MURAD ALI AND OTHERS V. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND OTHERS 2026:JKLHC-JMU:456:

DATE: 20/02/2026

COURT: High Court of

BENCH: Justice Rajnesh Oswal

FACTS:

On October 3, 2022, in Bari Brahmana, Samba district, Jammu and Kashmir, Zakir Hussain (deceased), Bashir Ahmed (injured), Bagh Hussain, and Kalu were returning from a marriage function in an Alto car (registration JK02CX 3876) when a group of accused persons, driven by old enmity, arrived in two Mahindra Bolero load carriers (registrations JK02AV 7394 and JK02CW 4079). The accused rammed into the Alto car, forcibly dragged out Zakir Hussain and Bashir Ahmed, and assaulted them with deadly weapons including tokas (sharp instruments), iron rods, lathis (sticks), and bamboo sticks at the spot near Narvada Factory. The victims were then abducted in one of the load carriers, taken to Balole Nallah bushes, where the assault continued under vehicle headlights. Subsequently, the critically injured Zakir Hussain and Bashir Ahmed were dumped near Lane No. 3, SIDCO Industrial Area, close to Dabur Factory. Bagh Hussain was taken away, while Kalu escaped. A complaint by Abdul Rashid (Zakir's nephew) led to FIR No. 187/2022 at Police Station Bari Brahmana under Sections 307, 364, 323, 427, 147, and 148 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act; Section 302 IPC was added after Zakir succumbed to injuries at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar.

The investigation revealed a premeditated attack by 22 accused persons, including the petitioners (Murad Ali alias Chuchu, Zakir Hussain alias Jagga, Mohd. Reyaz alias Raju, Kaga Gujjar, and others), rooted in longstanding enmity. Eye-witness statements under Section 164 CrPC from survivors and companions (Bashir Ahmed, Abdul Rashid, Khadam Hussain) detailed specific roles: Reham Ali striking Zakir's head with a toka, Murad Ali hitting Bashir with an iron rod, and others like Imam Hussain, Siraj Din, Lal Hussain, Tariq Hussain, Farooq Ali, and Reyaz Ali participating in the assault. Weapons were recovered based on disclosures from arrested accused, including iron pipes, bamboo sticks, and lathis from bushes near Dabur Factory and Balole Nallah. The charge sheet against initial six arrested accused was filed on January 20, 2023, and committed to Sessions Court; supplementary charge sheets followed arrests of additional accused (Kaga Gujjar on April 18, 2023; Mohd. Reyaz on September 15, 2023; Zakir Hussain alias Jagga on January 5, 2024; Imam Hussain alias Bachi on March 13, 2024). As of the bail hearing, 12 accused remain absconding, with 37 witnesses listed, but only five examined, including three eye-witnesses whose depositions incriminate the petitioners.

ISSUES:

The primary issues in this bail application revolve around whether the petitioners, charged with murder (Section 302 IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307), kidnapping (Section 364), and related offences carrying death or life imprisonment, should be granted bail after over two and a half years in incarceration. The petitioners argued a lack of incriminating evidence linking them to the crime, as examined eye-witnesses allegedly made only general allegations without specifying roles, coupled with trial delays (only five of 37 witnesses examined). The prosecution and complainant countered with prima facie evidence from witness statements, ongoing arrests of absconding co-accused, no prosecutorial delay (attributed to defense adjournments), and the gravity of offences precluding bail.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissed Bail Application No. 83/2025 on grounds that the petitioners failed to establish a case for bail, given the serious nature of the allegations and existence of prima facie evidence. However, the court directed the trial court (Principal Sessions Judge, Samba) to expedite the trial by avoiding unnecessary adjournments, ensuring a speedy resolution in the interest of both the accused and the public.

In its reasoning, the court applied settled principles from Supreme Court precedents such as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, and Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan (2023 INSC 642), emphasizing that while bail decisions require judicious discretion without a detailed evidentiary appraisal or prejudging merits, courts must briefly assess for prima facie satisfaction of charges, considering factors like offence severity, witness tampering risks, accused antecedents, and evidential links. Here, the allegations of premeditated murder and abduction by a group of 22, rooted in enmity, were grave, attracting death or life imprisonment. The court found no total absence of incriminating material: examined eye-witnesses (PW Bashir Ahmed, PW Abdul Rashid, PW Khadam Hussain) specifically implicated petitioners like Murad Ali (striking with iron rod), Reham Ali (toka assault), and others in the assault at multiple locations, corroborated by Section 164 CrPC statements, weapon recoveries from disclosures, and the addition of Section 201 IPC for concealment. Contradictions in testimonies could not be resolved at this stage, as it would prejudice the trial, and a key unexamined witness (Manshu Ali) could further strengthen the case. Thus, petitioners' claim of non-connection via "general allegations" was rejected, warranting denial of bail to prevent potential evidence tampering, especially with 12 absconding co-accused.

Further, addressing trial delay claims, the court scrutinized the record and timeline, concluding no prosecutorial laches: the charge sheet was promptly filed on January 20, 2023, against initial arrests (October 26, 2022), with supplementary filings after phased arrests up to March 2024; charges were framed on December 6, 2023, after defense-requested adjournments for charge/discharge arguments (May to November 2023), including absences and power-of-attorney filings. Only five witnesses examined post-charges reflected mutual adjournments, not deliberate stalling, and the unexamined Manshu underscored ongoing progress. While acknowledging the petitioners' 2.5-year incarceration, the court prioritized offence gravity and public interest in justice over concession, but imposed safeguards by directing the trial court to curb adjournments and conclude expeditiously, balancing speedy trial rights under Article 21 without undermining prosecution. This ensured bail denial aligned with constitutional fidelity, avoiding symbolic review.

ANALYSIS:

The judgment in Bail Application No. 83/2025 exemplifies the judiciary's cautious approach to granting bail in cases involving grave offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, particularly where prima facie evidence of direct involvement exists. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh rightly declined to treat the petitioners' prolonged detention of over two and a half years as an automatic ground for release, instead emphasizing the seriousness of the charges premeditated murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and use of deadly weapons in a group attack rooted in longstanding enmity. By closely examining the depositions of the three examined eye-witnesses (PW Bashir Ahmed, PW Abdul Rashid, and PW Khadam Hussain), the court found specific, incriminating attributions of roles to several petitioners, including Murad Ali's alleged assault with an iron rod and participation by others in the multi-stage beating. This evidence, bolstered by recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements and Section 164 CrPC recordings, negated the petitioners' contention that only vague or general allegations existed against them. The court's refusal to delve into contradictions or weigh credibility at the bail stage aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence, which cautions against mini-trials while still requiring a prima facie assessment to guard against misuse of liberty in heinous crimes. The presence of 12 absconding co-accused further justified the apprehension of potential witness intimidation or evidence tampering, reinforcing the decision to deny bail as a measured safeguard of the ongoing trial's integrity.

Equally noteworthy is the court's balanced handling of the trial-delay argument, which demonstrates sensitivity to the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 while refusing to penalize the prosecution for delays attributable to both sides. The detailed timeline scrutiny, prompt filing of the initial charge sheet in January 2023, supplementary filings following successive arrests, defense adjournments during charge arguments, and framing of charges only in December 2023, revealed no prosecutorial mala fides or deliberate foot-dragging. Instead, the court attributed slower witness examination to mutual adjournments and the phased nature of arrests, underscoring that the trial remained at an early stage with a crucial eye-witness (Manshu Ali) yet to be examined. By directing the trial court to avoid unnecessary adjournments and expedite proceedings, the judgment strikes a pragmatic equilibrium: it protects the petitioners' right to timely justice without prematurely releasing them in a case of exceptional gravity. This directive not only reinforces accountability on the trial court but also serves as a reminder that prolonged pre-trial detention, while undesirable, does not ipso facto warrant bail when countervailing factors such as offence severity, evidential strength, and public interest in effective prosecution outweigh liberty considerations. Overall, the ruling reflects principled restraint, fidelity to precedent, and a commitment to ensuring that bail jurisprudence does not undermine the pursuit of justice in serious criminal matters.