Bail rule not absolute in heinous offences: High Court

09/06/2026

JAMMU, Jun 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused bail to an accused in the Udhampur murder case, observing that the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" cannot be applied mechanically in cases involving grave offences such as murder.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi dismissed a bail application filed by Harbinder Singh under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with FIR No. 118/2023 registered at Police Station Rehambal, Udhampur, under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC.
The case pertains to the alleged murder of Ravi Kumar at Hope Centre in Udhampur.
According to the prosecution, police received information on April 1, 2023, regarding the suspicious death of Ravi Kumar, follo-wing which proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated.
During the inquiry, evidence allegedly surfaced indicating that the deceased had been assaulted over a dispute involving non-payment of Rs 1 lakh.
The prosecution alleged that co-accused Shubam Angral, Sadiq and Gourav Kumar, acting with common intention, killed the deceased. Consequently, the inquest proceedings were converted into a murder investigation and an FIR was registered on May 8, 2023.
During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, electronic evidence was collected and sent for forensic examination, and the accused persons were arrested in May 2023. The prosecution further alleged that Harbinder Singh had instructed the co-accused through a WhatsApp video call to assault the deceased and show him the act through video. It was also alleged that some surveillance cameras were switched off on his instructions and that he personally assaulted the deceased on March 30, 2023.
The charge-sheet was filed on August 3, 2023, and charges under Section 302 IPC were framed on March 4, 2024. Senior Advocate P.N. Raina, assisted by Advocate J.A. Hamal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Harbinder Singh had been falsely implicated and that the testimony of 23 prosecution witnesses examined so far did not connect him with the alleged crime.
Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia submitted that the petitioner was involved in a serious offence punishable with life imprisonment or death and that several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined. He also pointed to the petitioner's criminal antecedents.
While considering the plea, the High Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Y v. State of Rajasthan, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Sheikh Mehmood v. UT of J&K, and reiterated that bail jurisprudence requires balancing personal liberty with factors such as the gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, criminal antecedents and the possibility of influencing witnesses.
The Court observed that although the principle that bail is the norm remains a cardinal rule, it is not absolute and must be evaluated in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court noted that 23 out of 37 prosecution
witnesses had already been examined, while 14 material witnesses were still to testify. It also recorded that the petitioner had admitted his involvement in nine other criminal cases, of which three were still pending trial.
Rejecting the argument of prolonged incarceration, the Court held that the trial had substantially progressed and that the remaining witnesses were crucial to the prosecution case.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the trial, the severity of punishment prescribed and the antecedents of the accused, the High Court held that no case for grant of bail was made out at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty