Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:456 vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 20 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 06.02.2026
Pronounced on 20.02.2026
Uploaded on: 20.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Bail App No. 83/2025
Murad Ali and others .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Waheed Choudhary, Advocate
vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy.AG for Nos. 1 to 3
Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate for No. 4
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners figure as accused in charge sheet, titled, “U. T. of J&K vs.
Murad Ali and others” pending before the court of learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”) arising out of
FIR bearing No. 187/2022 for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 364, 427, 147 and 148 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered
with Police Station, Bari Brahmana, and are seeking bail on the grounds that
the statements made by three eye witnesses before the learned trial court do
not connect the petitioners with commission of any offence and they are
facing incarnation for the last two and half years. It is also averred in the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
application that till date, out of 37 witnesses, only three witnesses have been
examined by the learned trial court.
2. Objections stand filed by the official respondents as well as the complainant,
thereby narrating the factual aspects of the case. In the response, the official
respondents have stated that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution
in conducting the trial and the prosecution has summoned and recorded the
statements of the witnesses time to time without any delay and further that
there are 12 accused, who are still absconding in the instant case and yet to
be apprehended. It is also stated that the offences in which petitioners are
involved carry death penalty or life imprisonment and keeping in view of the
severity of punishment, the petitioners do not deserve any concession of bail.
3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, has
vehemently argued that the eye witnesses examined till date have not
deposed about the role played by the petitioners in the commission of
offence of murder and rather general allegations have been levelled against
the petitioners, therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. He has further
submitted that in a span of two and half years, only five witnesses have been
examined.
4. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy.AG representing official
respondents, has submitted that initially only six accused came to be arrested
on 26.10.2022 and thereafter, two more accused persons, namely, Kaga
Gujjar and Mohd Reyaz alias Raju were arrested in the year 2023. In the
month of January-2024, another accused, namely, Zakir Hussain alias Jagga
was arrested. Another accused, namely, Imam Hussain alias Bachi was
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 2 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
arrested in the month of March, 2024. He has further submitted that the
prosecution has produced the witnesses without any delay and prior to the
framing of charge on 06.12.2023, number of adjournments were sought by
the defence to argue the matter on the issue of charge/discharge. He has
vehemently argued that the offences under section 302 IPC for which the
petitioners have been charged, carry punishment of death and life
imprisonment and in such cases, bail cannot be granted.
5. Ms. Vasudha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the injured-victim, has
submitted that the eye witnesses examined so far have made incriminating
statements regarding involvement of the petitioners in the commission of
offences for which they have been charged and while considering the bail
application, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be appreciated.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The allegations leveled against the petitioners in the charge sheet are that on
03.10.2022, complainant, namely, Abdul Rashid S/o. Makhan R/o. Barotian,
Samba submitted a written application with Police Station, Bari Brahmana
for registration of FIR against Reham Ali, Mam Hussain both sons of
Ibrahim, Bachu S/o. Reham Ali, Kaga, Murad Ali, Riyaz, Mansu, Farmaan,
Manzoor, Zakir all sons of Syeed Ali, Siraj S/o. Bashir, Bashir S/o. Lal
Hussain, Showkat S/o. Bashir, Bagh Hussain S/o. Munna, Zakir S/o.
Hashim, Ali Hussain S/o. Farooq, Bachi S/o. Miyan, Lalu S/o. Miyan,
Farooq S/o. Raj Wali, Talib, Bachu both sons of Saif Ali, Maku S/o. Imam
Hussain, Roshan, Taru both sons of Qasim, Juka S/o. Ali Hussain, Showkat
Ali S/o. Imam Hussain all residents of Balole Khad, Bari Brahmana, Samba.
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 3 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
It was stated that on 03.10.2022, his maternal uncle Zakir Hussain along with
Bashir S/o. Noor Hussain both R/o. Balole Khad, Bari Brahmana, Bagh
Hussain and Kalo had gone to Balole Nallah, Bari Brahmana and after
attending the function, while returning, when reached near Peer Baba, Pipe
Factory Industrial Area in their Alto Car bearing registration No. JK02CX
3876 at about 2240 hours, all the above mentioned persons came there in a
Mahindra Load Carrier, registration number not known due to old enmity
with common criminal intention to murder, hit their Alto Car and forcibly
kidnapped them in above said Mahindra vehicle and after commission of
crime with deadly weapons threw Zakir Hussain and Bashir at Lane No. 03
SIDCO Industrial Area near Dabur Factor in critically injured condition.
They took Bagh Hussain with them and Kalu escaped himself from their
clutches and ran away.
8. On receipt of the information, FIR bearing No. 187/2022 for offences
punishable under sections 307, 364, 323, 427, 147 and 148 IPC and 4/25
Arms Act was registered and investigation was commenced. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered Zakir Hussain S/o. Dhaua
R/o. Laswara Deoli, Jammu and Bashir Ahmed in a critical injured condition
and shifted them to GMC Jammu. During treatment, injured Zakir Hussain
succumbed to his injuries at Amandeep Hospital Amritsar. Thereafter,
offence under section 302 IPC was added. The statements of eye witnesses
were also recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. On 26.10.2022 accused,
namely, Murad Ali alias Chuchu, Siraj Din alias Siraj, Lal Hussain alias
Lalu, Tariq Hussain alias Taru, Farooq Ali, Zakir Hussain were arrested.
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 4 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
During questioning, Murad Ali alias Chuchu made disclosure statement with
regard to iron pipe whereas other accused, namely, Siraj Din, Lal Hussain,
Tariq Hussain, Farooq Ali and Zakir Hussain made disclosure statements
with regard to the weapons of offence i.e. large size Bamboo sticks and were
recovered from the bushes at Balole Nallah near the Dabur Factory, Bari
Brahmana.
9. From the statements of the witnesses recorded, it was found that there was
long old enmity of the petitioners with the deceased Zakir Hussain and
injured Bashir Ahmed. On 03.10.2022, deceased Zakir Hussain and injured
Bashir Ahmed went to Balole Nallah, Bari Brahmana for attending the
marriage function and when they along with Khadam Hussain, Manshu Ali
and Mohd. Rashid were returning in Alto Car bearing registration No.
JK02CX 3876 and reached near the Narvada Factory, Bari Brahmana, Main
Road at about 2200/2215 hours, the above said accused came there in two
Bolero Mahindra load carriers No. JK02AV 7394 and JK02CW 4079 from
SIDCO Chowk Bari Brahmana on the wrong side and hit the Alto Car by
Mahindra Load Carrier bearing registration No. JK02AV 7394. All the
accused came out from both the Mahindra Load Carriers armed with deadly
weapons with intention to murder. When the deceased Zakir Hussain and
injured Bashir Ahmed tried to come out from the Alto Car, accused Reham
Ali, who was holding a deadly weapon i.e. Toka in his hand, hit Zakir
Hussain on the head. Murad Ali alias Chuchu hit Bashir Ahmed with an iron
rod on his head and all the accused dragged out Bashir Ahmed and Zakir
Hussain from the car and started beating them with Tokas, Lathis and rods.
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 5 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
The car’s other occupants, Khadam Hussain, Manshu Ali, and Mohd.
Rashid, stepped out and took cover in the nearby bushes. The above-
mentioned accused boarded the deceased Zakir Hussain and Bashir Ahmed
in Mahindra Load Carrier bearing registration No. JK02CW 4079 and took
them towards Balole Nallah side in the bushes and both the injured persons
were dragged down from the Bolero Load Carrier and were again beaten
with Tokas, Lathies and rod. Both got serious injuries. They took them in
Mahindra Bolero Load Carrier bearing registration No. JK02AV 7394 and
threw them near Dabur Factory Balole Nallah along with road. During
investigation, offences under sections 302, 307, 323, 147 and 148 IPC and
4/25 Arms Act were established against Reham Ali, Imam Hussain alias
Phaliya both son of Ibrahim, Tasadiq Hussain alias Maka S/o. Imam Hussain
alias Phaliya, Ashfaq Ali alias Bachu S/o. Reham Ali, all residents of
Langotia, RS Pura, Jammu, Shoket Ali alias Shoku S/o. Bashir Ahmed,
Yaqoob Ali alias Juka S/o. Ali Hussain, Ali Hussain, Kaga Din both S/o.
Firoz Din alias Faro, Talib Hussain alias Tallu S/o. Saif Ali, Bashir Ahmed
S/o. Lal Hussain, all residents of Kothey Churli, Tehsil Bishnah, Mohd Riaz
alias Raju, Manshu both S/o. Sayed Ali all Rakh Barotian Vijaypur, Zakir
Hussain alias Jagga S/o. Hashim Din R/o. Laswara Deoli Bishnah, Imam
Hussian alias Bachi S/o. Mam Din alias Mian R/o. Krail Manhsan, Tehsil
Bishnah, Bagh Hussian alias Roshan Din alias Rosha S/o. Qasim Din R/o.
Meen Sarkar, Sarore Adda, Bari Brahmana, Murad Ali alias Chuchu S/o. Ali
Hussain R/o. Kothe, Siraj Din Alias Siraj S/o. Bashir Ahmed resident of
Kothe, Lal Hussain alias Lalu S/o. Mam Din resident of Krail Manhsan,
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 6 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
Bishnah, Tariq Hussain alias Taru S/o. Qasim Din R/o. Sarore Adda Bari
Brahmana, Farooq Ali S/o. Raj Wali, Zakir Hussain S/o. Sayeed Ali R/o
Rakh Barotian, Vijaypur.
10. As only six accused as mentioned above were arrested on 26.10.2022,
therefore, after completing the legal formalities, charge sheet was filed
against them before the learned Magistrate and the challan was committed to
learned Sessions Court on 20.01.2023. During course of further
investigation, one more absconding accused Kagga Gujjar i.e. petitioner No.
8 was arrested on 18.04.2023 and he disclosed that he had burnt the weapon
of offence i.e. Lathi near his house at Gujjar Colony, Sunjwan and as such,
offence under section 201 IPC was added in the instant case. Supplementary
charge sheet was produced against him on 12.06.2023. On 15.09.2023
another accused, namely, Mohd. Reyaz i.e, petitioner No. 7 was arrested. He
stated that he had thrown the weapon of offence at an unknown place in Bari
Brahmana and after 11 months, he cannot identify the actual place. On
04.10.2023, supplementary charge sheet was filed against Mohd. Reyaz alias
Raju. On 05.01.2024 complainant party informed Police Station that they
had apprehended one more absconding accused Zakir Hussain alias Jagga
petitioner No. 2 herein and he was accordingly arrested. On 13.03.2024,
again the complainant party informed the Police that they had apprehended
one more accused Imam Hussain alias Bachi and he was also arrested. It is
evident, as on date, 12 accused are still absconding.
11. It is urged by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel that the witnesses
examined till date have not deposed against the petitioners. The most
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 7 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
important witness is injured-PW Bashir Ahmed. List of witnesses annexed
with the charge sheet reveals that there are 37 witnesses. Mr. Sethi, learned
Senior Counsel, referred to the statements of PW Abdul Rashid, Bashir
Ahmed, and Khadam Hussain in an effort to persuade this Court that there is
no incriminating evidence linking the petitioners to the offense of murder.
12. PW-Bashir Ahmed in his deposition before the Court has stated that in the
month of October, 2022, he along with Zakir Hussain were in Vijaypur in
connection with marriage of his paternal aunt’s son. After performance of
nikah ceremony and meals, he along with Zakir Husain, Manshu Mohd.
Rashid, Khadam Hussain sat in Alto Car bearing registration No. JK02CX
3876. They went towards Bari Brahmana and in the meanwhile, one Balero
came on wrong side, hit their Alto Car from the front and Zakir Hussain
reversed the car. Then another Balero came from behind. From Balero
Vehicle in front of the car, Reham Ali came out. Murad Ali also came out
from the same vehicle. Imam Hussain, Tasaduk Hussain, Siraj S/o Bashir
Ahmad, Showkat Ali, Manshu, Zakir Hussain, Lal Hussain and Mam
Hussain also came out from another vehicle. Reham Ali assaulted Zakir
Hussain with Toka at his head, Murad Ali assaulted him with iron rod, Reyaz
Ali also assaulted with rod on his left leg and thereafter, all the accused
assaulted them. In the meanwhile, one truck from Smailpur came and three
others, who were with them in the vehicle hid themselves in the bushes.
Accused had also gone here and there. Thereafter, he and Zakir Hussain were
put in a Mahindra Load Carrier and taken from Dabur Factory to Balole
Nallah. Both vehicles were positioned facing each other with their lights kept
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 8 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
on. From the second vehicle, Juka S/o. Ali Hussain, Ali Hussain alias Kaga
S/o. Firoz Din, Bagh Hussain S/o. Tariq Hussain, Farooq, Zakir Hussain,
Bashir Ahmed S/o. Lal Hussain, Issac Ali came out of the vehicle, and they
all started beating them with rods and sticks. Reyaz Ahmed and Zakir
Hussain were also carrying toka and they assaulted them for few minutes.
Reham Ali and Murad Ali were instigating them to assault them more as
Zakir Hussain was still alive and after assaulting, they were again kept in the
vehicle and thrown outside the Dabur Factory. During cross-examination, he
has stated that his brother-in-law, namely, Zakir Hussain is accused in FIR
under section 376 IPC, which is false FIR and false allegations have been
leveled by the accused.
13. PW-Abdul Rashid has also made statement on identical lines. He has
specifically stated that Reham Ali hit at the head of the Zakir Hussain and
Murad Ali who have having spear (rod) and further that the other accused
were armed with lathis (sticks) and their names are Imam Husain, Ishfaq,
Sadaqat Hussain, Ali Hussain, Lal Hussain, Farooq, Zakir Hussain alias
Jagga, Manshu, Zakir Hussain S/o. Syed Ali, Reyaz Ali alias Raju, Siraj Din
S/o. Bashir, Showkat Ali, Talib Hussain, Roshan Din. Both Zakir Hussain
deceased and Bashir Ahmed injured were taken towards Balole Nallah.
14. PW-Khadam Hussain has stated about mode and manner, in which the
accused assaulted them. He stated that he was accompanied with Zakir
Hussian, Mohd. Bashir, Manshu Ali and Bashir Ahmed in Alto Car bearing
registration No. JK02CX 3876. He has stated that his Alto Car was hit by
Bolero and the arrival of another Bolero on spot. He has further deposed that
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 9 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
Reham Ali assaulted Zakir Hussain with Toka. Murad Ali assaulted Mohd.
Bashir with rod. They (witness) and two companions hid themselves in the
bushes. 22 persons had alighted from the vehicles. Their names were Reham
Ali, Mam Hussain, Tariq Hussian, Ishfaq Ali, Ali Hussain, Gagga, Murad
Ali, Zakir Hussain, Bagh Ali, Zakir Hussain, Farooq Ali, Tariq Hussain,
Bashir, Talib Hussain, Showkat Ali, Raj, Manshu Ali and Zakir Hussain.
They were also assaulting on spot. They took both the injured to Bari
Brahmana Khad, where 22 persons assaulted them with tokas, iron rods and
bamboo sticks.
15. It is settled law that while considering a bail application, the court cannot
appreciate the evidence on record in detail; however, such evidence may be
examined for the limited purpose of determining whether any incriminating
material exists against the accused. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan alias Pallu Yadav and anther, (2004) 7 SCC 528, it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “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”.
16. In State of Utter Pradesh through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8
SCC 21, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “While a detailed
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 10 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
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”.
17. In Rohit Bishnoi Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2023 INSC 642, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has observed as under:
“We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order
above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the
only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High Court
while granting bail. As noted from the afore cited judgments, 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.
(emphasis added)
18. The allegations against the petitioners are of a grave and serious nature. They
are accused of abducting Zakir Hussain and assaulting both him and Bashir
Ahmed, resulting in the death of the former and serious injuries to the latter.
When the case of the petitioners is examined on the touchstone of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said at this stage that
there is a total absence of evidence. Any contradictions in testimony cannot
be evaluated now to determine culpability, as doing so would amount to
prejudging the merits of the case. Furthermore, a key eyewitness, Manshu, is
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 11 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
yet to be examined. Consequently, the petitioners have failed to establish a
case for bail based on a purported lack of evidence.
19. It was contended that in two and half years, only three witnesses have been
examined. After perusing the record, this Court finds that charge sheet was
filed against six accused on 20.01.2023 and was committed to the learned
Sessions Court on the same day. Learned counsel for the defence filed the
power of attorney only on 25.05.2023 and thereafter, adjournments were
sought by the defence counsel on the next two dates of hearings i.e. on
13.06.2023 and 15.07.2023 and the learned counsel for the defence was
absent on 05.08.2023. Yet again on 26.08.2023, defence counsel sought
adjournment. Finally the defence counsel argued on the issue of
charge/discharge on 14.08.2023 and in the meanwhile, two more charge
sheets were filed and vide order dated 07.11.2023, all these charge sheets
were directed to be clubbed and finally on 06.12.2023, charges for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 323, 427
and 147 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act were framed against the petitioners.
Thereafter, one more accused, namely, Zakir Hussain alias Jagga was
arrested and vide order dated 05.01.2024, he was also charged for
commission of abovementioned offences. Thereafter, one more accused,
namely, Imam Hussain alias Bachi was arrested and vide order dated
01.05.2024, Imam Hussain was also charged for commission of
abovementioned offences.
20. Although only five witnesses have been examined so far, the established
timeline suggests that the prosecution is not intentionally delaying the trial.
Bail App No. 83/2025 Page 12 of 13
2026:JKLHC-JMU:456
Key eye witness Manshu, who was with Bashir Ahmed in the vehicle at the
time of the incident, has not been examined as yet.
21. Be that as it may, 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.
22. 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.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu:
20.02.2026
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/NoBail App No. 83/2025 Page 13 of 13
