HC rejects bail plea of Poonch man accused of murder by poisoning friend

13/11/2026

Jammu, Nov 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected a successive bail application filed by a Poonch resident accused of murdering his friend by allegedly administering poison to him over a monetary dispute involving Rs. 50,000.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while dismissing the bail application of Mohd Tariq in Bail Application No. 305/2024, held that the material collected during investigation and evidence brought on record during trial did not rule out reasonable grounds for believing the accused's involvement in the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The case arises out of FIR No. 30/2020 registered at Police Station Loran, Poonch, under Sections 302, 109, 295 and 201 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner owed Rs. 50,000 to the deceased, Sheraz Yousif, and that his demand for repayment allegedly led to the conspiracy to eliminate him.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was allegedly called to Danna Loran, taken to the house of a co-accused and administered poison. He was subsequently shifted to a nearby mosque after his death, allegedly to screen the evidence of the crime.
The prosecution relied upon the forensic evidence, particularly the report of the Jammu and Kashmir Forensic Laboratory dated November 9, 2020, which detected organophosphorus insecticide in the exhibits. The Medical Board, on the basis of the FSL opinion, concluded that the deceased had suffered cardiorespiratory arrest as a result of organophosphorus poisoning.
Seeking bail, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, that there was no direct ocular evidence against him and that his continued incarceration for more than five years, coupled with the grant of bail to three co-accused, entitled him to relief on the grounds of prolonged detention and parity.
The High Court, however, observed that the absence of direct ocular evidence was not, by itself, sufficient to discard the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. "The circumstantial evidence cannot be brushed aside for want of ocular evidence in aid of the same," Justice Wani observed, reiterating that the circumstances in such cases must form a chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The court further explained that the expression "reasonable grounds" under Section 437 CrPC, corresponding to Section 480 of the BNSS, means something more than mere suspicion or conjecture and something less than proof. The determination must be based on tangible material and the nature and character of evidence available against the accused.
Referring to the settled principles governing the exercise of bail jurisdiction, the court emphasised that the gravity and nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of the accused fleeing from justice and apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence are relevant considerations. The court also noted that the petitioner was formally charged as the alleged main offender under Section 302 IPC, which attracts the statutory restrictions on grant of bail. Taking note of the fact that the prosecution evidence had been concluded and the matter was listed before the trial court for final arguments, the High Court held that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage was likely to cause a miscarriage of justice.
While declining the relief, the court requested the Additional Sessions Judge, Poonch, to conclude the trial at the earliest and clarified that its observations were confined to consideration of the bail application and would not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The successive bail application was accordingly dismissed.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty