HC denies bail in assault case, cites incomplete probe, absconding accused

Five accused absconding, weapons yet to be recovered

03/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 2: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a plea seeking regular bail by a 57-year-old Rajouri resident in connection with an alleged pre-planned assault involving several persons and weapons, observing that the investigation was still at a nascent stage and that the release of the accused could affect witnesses and the ongoing probe.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while pronouncing the judgment on September 1 in Bail Application No. 147/2026, held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate such a material change in circumstances as would justify a different view from the earlier rejection of bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
The bail plea was filed by Kewal Krishan, son of Behari Lal, a resident of Rajouri who is presently lodged in District Jail, Rajouri. He had sought regular bail in FIR No. 314/2026 dated June 12, 2026, registered at Police Station Rajouri under Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, assisted by Advocates Parimoksh Seth and Amullaya Gupta, while the UT of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia.
Senior Advocate Aseem K Sawhney, along with Advocates Nishant Verma, Kashif Malik, Sarfraz Ahmed and Anil Kumar, appeared for complainant Neeraj Sharma, who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the proceedings.
According to the petitioner's counsel, Kewal Krishan had been falsely implicated and no specific overt act had been attributed to him in the FIR. It was argued that the allegations against him were general and omnibus in nature and essentially arose out of a fight between two groups.
The counsel also submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at about 9:20 pm on June 12, claiming that he was attending to his regular business at a petrol pump. Reliance was placed on CCTV footage from the petrol pump, which, according to the defence, showed his presence there during the relevant period.
The defence further pointed out that an earlier bail application had been rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, on July 11, 2026, primarily when the injured persons were still undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ludhiana. It was argued that both injured persons had subsequently been discharged and, therefore, there had been a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail.
The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, submitting that the investigation was still underway, five accused persons were absconding, the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi had not yet been recorded and the weapons allegedly used in the incident had not been recovered. The investigating agency had also placed on record the seizure of the vehicle allegedly used in the occurrence, statements of witnesses and analysis of call detail records.
The complainant's counsel, Aseem Sawhney, alleged that the victims had been intercepted while returning from their shop and subjected to a concerted attack by several persons using hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons described as Toka and other weapons.
The court noted that the complainant had also alleged that approximately two months before the present incident, injured Nikhil Bakshi had been attacked by 15-16 persons, some of whom were allegedly accused in the present case. FIR No. 181/2026 had been registered at Police Station Rajouri in connection with that incident. The complainant further alleged that the victims had thereafter received continuous threats and warnings of dire consequences.
The High Court also considered the fact that the present plea was a successive bail application. It observed that although a successive bail application is maintainable, the applicant must demonstrate a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a departure from the earlier decision.
Justice Nargal found that the claimed change in circumstances was not sufficient. Although the defence relied upon the discharge of the injured persons from the Ludhiana hospital, the latest status report showed that the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi was still to be recorded and his medical reports were awaited. Thus, the circumstances which had earlier weighed with the court below had not completely lost their relevance.
The court further noted that the investigation had not reached a stage where the prosecution's apprehensions could be dismissed as vague or speculative. Five accused persons were stated to be absconding, the statement of one injured person remained pending, medical material was awaited and recovery of the alleged weapons was yet to be effected.
At the same time, the High Court made it clear that it was not undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence at the bail stage. It observed that the CCTV footage relied upon by the defence would require assessment of its authenticity, continuity and evidentiary value in the light of the entire evidence and that its ultimate effect was best left for consideration during trial.
The court also took note of the applicant's antecedents and the allegation that FIR No. 35/2024 had not been disclosed in the bail application, which had mentioned two earlier FIRs. The defence had explained that the applicant was unaware of the registration of the third FIR, but the High Court held that the bail application nevertheless did not contain complete disclosure of the criminal cases stated by the investigating agency to be pending against him.
Referring to the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., the High Court observed that an applicant seeking bail is required to make a full and candid disclosure of material particulars, including criminal antecedents.
The High Court also relied upon settled Supreme Court principles governing bail, including the nature and gravity of accusations, prima facie material, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing or intimidating witnesses, criminal antecedents and the possibility of obstruction of the investigation or trial.
"Viewed cumulatively", the court held that the circumstances which had weighed with the lower court had not undergone a material change. It noted the seriousness of the alleged assault, the use of weapons, the incomplete investigation, the five absconding accused, the pending statement and medical material of one injured person, the unrecovered weapons and the applicant's antecedents and incomplete disclosure.
The court accordingly concluded that the applicant had failed to make out a case for grant of regular bail and dismissed the bail application.
The High Court, however, clarified that its observations were confined strictly to deciding the bail plea and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. It directed that the trial court would consider the matter independently on the basis of evidence brought on record and in accordance with law.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty