Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abhi Kumar Alias Abhi Age 27 Years vs Ut Of J&K Through Incharge Police … on 24 April, 2026
Sr. No. 105
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No.319/2025
Date of pronouncement: 24.04.2026
Date of uploading: 27.04.2026
Date
CR
Abhi Kumar alias Abhi Age 27 years
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
R/o Mana Tehsil R.S. Pura
District Jammu. ...Applicant(s)
At present detained in the Judicial
Lockup in District Jail Kathua.
Through: Mr. D.S. Saini, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K through Incharge Police Station Ramgarh
District Samba.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA vice
Mr. Visha Bharti, Dy.AG for R-1.
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
24.04.2026 (ORAL)
01. Petitioner, an undertrial, has approached this Court for bail, after his
plea for a similar relief in terms of order dated 06.09.2025, came to be
declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samba [“the trial
Court”].
02. As prosecution story would unfurl on 09.08.2021, one Sat Pal lodged
a written complaint with Police Station, Ramgarh, District Samba
stating, inter alia, that his younger brother Madan Lal runs a hardware
shop in Ramgarh town. His son Mohinder Paul sits in the shop and
younger son of his brother namely Munish Paul would often sit with
him. At around 08:30 p.m. when Mohinder Paul and Manish Paul
were closing the shop, 2-3 unknown persons equipped with sharp-
edged weapons like toka etc. entered the shop and in furtherance of
common criminal intention, attacked both Mohinder Paul and Manish
Paul. They were seriously injured and one of Munish Paul’s arm was
amputated. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.59/2021 for offences
under Sections 307/323/326/393/364-A/511/201/147 IPC and 4/25
Arms Act came to be registered.
03. During investigation, when statements of injured under Section 164
Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 13.10.2021, they revealed that
accused not only made an attempt on their lives but also tried to
kidnap one of victim’s child namely Mandeep Singh @ Manu. The
investigation culminated in the presentation of chargesheet in the trial
Court.
04. Accused came to be charged by the trial Court on 09.10.2023 for
aforesaid offences to which they pleaded innocence, prompting the
trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence.
05. Petitioner preferred an application for his enlargement in the trial
Court; whereby his plea came to be declined primarily on the ground
of seriousness of the charge and bar under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
06. Petitioner has taken an exception to the observation of learned trial
Court primarily on the ground of false implication and prolonged
trial.
Page No.2
Bail App No.319/2025
07. The plea has been opposed on the other side by the
respondents/prosecution and injured predominantly on the ground of
gravity of the charge. It is contended that since material prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined, propensity on the part of the
petitioner to influence and coerce prosecution witnesses, cannot be
ruled out.
08. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the
petition and scanned the trial record.
09. Personal liberty of a citizen is too precious a value of our
constitutional framework recognized under Article 21. Courts are
required to take cognizance of the fact that liberty of an individual,
whose involvement is to be established in a full dressed trial is not
dealt with lightly, because it is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Seriousness of
charge, no doubt, is a material consideration in a bail plea but that
cannot be the only factor to be taken into consideration, because if it
is reckoned as the only basis, then it may amount to recalibration of
scales of justice.
10. The complainant approached the Police Station with a complaint
alleging inter alia that some unknown persons equipped with sharp
edged weapons entered his shop and attacked his son and nephew
namely Mohinder Paul and Manish Paul when they were closing the
shop and in the occurrence, one of Manish Paul’s arm was amputated.
It is pertinent to underline that during investigation, when statements
of injured came to be recorded after a lapse of more than two months,
Page No.3
Bail App No.319/2025
they alleged for the first time that accused persons not only made an
attempt on their lives but they also tried to kidnap minor son of one of
the victims namely Mandeep Singh alias Manu for ransom.
Pertinently, on this revelation coming forth after more than two
months that petitioner and co-accused came to be charged by the
investigating agency with allegations of attempt to kidnap for ransom
under Sections 364-A/511 IPC. The material on record, prima facie
points out the absence of grounds to believe that petitioner is involved
in the commission of offence of attempt to kidnap for ransom.
11. Be that as it may, there is another aspect of the matter. The
occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 09.08.2021 and
petitioner came to be arrested on 20.10.2021, i.e. more than four years
back. He was charged by the trial Court on 09.01.2023, i.e. about
three years back and so far prosecution has managed to examine only
07 witnesses out of 19 cited in the challan.
12. All material prosecution witnesses including the complainant and
injured stand examined. It is evident from the pace with which trial is
proceeding that examination of remaining 12 prosecution witnesses is
likely to take quite considerable period.
13. In the circumstances, embargo contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C.
cannot be construed to have same efficacy, notwithstanding the length
of the trial and period of incarceration of the undertrial and in view of
salutary provision of Article 21 of the Constitution, prosecution
cannot be allowed to invoke bar of Section 437 in perpetuity and
Page No.4
Bail App No.319/2025
dilute fundamental right of petitioner to speedy trial and personal
liberty.
14. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to
be released on bail upon furnishing a surety bond to the tune of
₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and a bond of
personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of
Superintendent of the concerned jail, subject, however to the
following conditions that:
i. he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court without prior permission;
ii. he shall attend in accordance with the conditions of
the bail bonds;
iii. he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused; andiv. he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the trial Court or
tamper with the evidence.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
24.04.2026
EvaWhether the judgment is speaking or not? Yes/No.
Whether the judgment is reportable or not? Yes/NoPage No.5
Bail App No.319/2025
