Jammu & Kashmir High Court
At Jammu vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 6 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 35/2025
Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
Uploaded on : 06.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Kewal Singh
....Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Ch. Mohd. Shabir, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K & anr
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1.
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
\
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under
Section 483(3) of BNSS seeking cancellation of bail granted in
favour of respondent No. 2 by learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Reasi vide his order dated 23.12.2024 in a case arising
out of FIR No. 85/2024 for offences under Sections
302/307/450/452/323/109 IPC read with section 30 Arms
Act registered with Police Station, Reasi.
02. It appears that the petitioner, who happens to be
the father-in-law of respondent No. 2, had lodged a written
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 1 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
report with the police of Police Station, Reasi on 11.05.2024
alleging therein that accused Doulat Ram along with some
unknown persons had come to his residence along with
weapons at Kambal Danga and he opened fire from his
licensed gun towards deceased Amit Singh on his chest, as a
result of which he sustained bullet injuries whereafter he was
shifted to District Hospital, Reasi where he succumbed to the
injuries. FIR No. 85 of 2024 for offences under Section
452/307/34 IPC read with section 4/25 Arms Act was
registered with Police Station, Reasi and investigation of the
case was undertaken. Upon death of injured Amit Singh,
offence under section 302 IPC was incorporated in the FIR.
03. After investigation of the case, it was found that
main accused Doulat Ram had killed his son-in-law deceased
Amit Singh as his daughter Geeta Devi, respondent No. 2
herein and his son-in-law, deceased Amit Singh, were having a
matrimonial discord. It was also found that there was an
argument between the deceased Amit Singh and main accused
Doulat Ram on 11.05.2024 when he armed with his VDC
weapon had gone to the house of the deceased. Accused
Doulat Ram fired one round on deceased Amit Singh and
another round on Ameer Singh, who happens to be the brother
of the deceased, with an intention to kill them.
04. It appears that initially the name of respondent
No. 2-Geeta Devi was not mentioned in the FIR but later on
during the investigation of the case, on the basis of the
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 2 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
statements of the witnesses made under section 164/161 of
CrPC she was impleaded as co-accused after it was found that
she had abetted the main accused in committing the crime.
05. After investigation of the case, offences under
sections 302/307/450/452/323 IPC read with Section 30 of
the Arms Act were found established against accused Doulat
Ram and offence under section 109 IPC was established
against Geeta Devi-respondent No. 2 herein. Both these
accused were taken into custody and the challan was
produced before the learned trial court. Vide order dated
12.12.2024, the learned trial court framed charges for offences
under sections 302/ 307/450 IPC read with section 30 Arms
Act against accused Doulat Ram whereas charge for offences
under sections 302/ 307/109 IPC was framed against
respondent No. 2-Geeta Devi.
06. An application came to be filed by respondent No. 2-
Geeta Devi before the learned trial court seeking bail primarily
on the ground that she is a lady and that she has to take care
of two minor breast feeding children, one aged two and a half
years and other aged one and a half years. The learned trial
court, after hearing the parties and after analyzing the
material on record, enlarged respondent No. 2-Geeta Devi on
bail in terms of order dated 23.12.2024 solely on humanitarian
grounds without touching the merits of the case.
07. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the
petitioner/complainant on the grounds that the said order is
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 3 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
arbitrary and has been passed in a casual manner. It has
been contended that the bail order passed by the learned trial
court suffers from infirmity, which has resulted in miscarriage
of justice. It has been contended that only one eye witness has
been examined so far and most of the material witnesses are
yet to be examined, therefore, it was not open for the learned
trial court to enlarge respondent No. 2-Geeta Devi on bail in a
heinous offence like murder. It has been contended that order
of bail has been passed on irrelevant considerations inasmuch
as two minor children are not residing with respondent No. 2.
It has been further contended that there is every apprehension
that respondent No. 2 would tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and in this regard, the petitioner has already
submitted an application with SHO Police Station, Reasi. It
has been contended that respondent No. 2 could not have been
granted bail in a case relating to gruesome murder of her
husband by none-else than her father with whom she was
completely in league. Relying upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh and ors Vs.
State (Delhi Administration), 1978 AIR 179 and Kanwar
Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr (2012) 12 SCC
180, it has been contended that the learned trial court has,
while granting bail to respondent No. 2, ignored the legal
principles settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two
cases.
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 4 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
08. Respondent-State in its reply to the application has
narrated the allegations made in the chargesheet and it has
been contended that the learned trial court should not have
granted bail to respondent No. 2 in a heinous offence like
murder.
09. Respondent No. 2-Geeta Devi in her reply to the
application has submitted that initially she was not named as
an accused in the FIR but it was only when statements of
three witnesses, namely, Amir Singh, Ajay Singh and
Meenchan Devi were recorded after about one month of the
occurrence that her name was impleaded as an accused
whereafter she came to be arrested on 10.06.2024. It has
been contended that there was no abetment or instigation on
behalf of respondent no. 2-Geeta Devi and there is no reliable
evidence on record to this effect. It has been submitted
respondent No. 2 has been dragged into the alleged occurrence
after thorough deliberation and discussion between the
complainant and his other family members.
10. Respondent No. 2 has admitted that she was having
a matrimonial discord with her deceased husband, who was
repeatedly making demands of dowry from her and was
harassing her in connection with these demands. It has been
submitted that respondent No. 2 has two minor breast feeding
children, one aged two and a half years and other aged one
and a half years whose custody has been forcibly taken away
by the petitioner and his family members while she was in
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 5 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
custody. It has been submitted that she has already filed a
petition seeking custody of her minor children before learned
District Judge, Reasi.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
12. In the present case, the petitioner/complainant is
seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2-Geeta
Devi by the learned trial court. Before dealing with the rival
contentions of the parties, it is necessary to notice the legal
position as regards the circumstances in which bail granted to
an accused can be cancelled and the factors, which are
required to be taken into note while arriving at such decision.
13. In Dolat Ram and Ors Vs. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349, the following grounds were laid down by
the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail:
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;
(iv) possibility of accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail and
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or
threatening witnesses.
14. In Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P & anr, (2022) 8
SCC 559, the Supreme Court, after noticing the ratio laid
down in Dolat Ram‘s case (supra) has held that cancellation
of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances and that discretion to cancel the bail of an
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 6 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances is
vested with the court. The Supreme Court culled out
illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled.
The same are reproduced as under:
a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant
material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while
ignoring relevant material on record.
b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential
position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse
or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse
of position and power over the victim.
c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused
is completely ignored while granting bail.
d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first
place given the very serious nature of the charges against the
accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be
justified.
g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical,
capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
15. From the foregoing analysis of legal position on the
subject, it is clear that not only in cases where conditions of
bail have been violated by an accused or where there is an
attempt on his part to interfere with the due course of justice,
the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled but it can
also be cancelled in a case where relevant factors, which
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 7 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
should have been taken into consideration by a Court while
dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note
of or if the bail order is founded on irrelevant considerations.
Thus, the superior court is vested with the power to set aside
an order of bail if it is found that the court granting bail has
failed to consider the relevant factors.
16. Coming to the facts of the present case, the learned
trial court has granted bail to respondent No. 2 on
humanitarian grounds and not on merits. While granting bail
to respondent No. 2, learned trial court has noted that she is
having two breast feeding minor children, one aged two and a
half years and other one and a half years, who need her care
and protection. It has also been noted by the learned trial
court that role of respondent No 2 is that of an abettor and
being a lady, a lenient view has to be taken while considering
her plea for bail.
17. All the aforesaid factors that have been taken into
account by the learned trial court while enlarging respondent
No. 2 on bail can, by no stretch of reasoning, be termed as
irrelevant considerations. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner has two minor children, one aged two and a half
years and another aged one and a half years. Though it is
being contended by the petitioner that presently the children
are in his custody and not with their mother yet, it has to be
noted that the said situation has arisen only because their
mother was taken into custody by the police during
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 8 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
investigation/trial of the case. So it is not a case where
respondent No. 2 has abdicated her children or that her
children are staying away from her because of her conduct but
it is a case where children of respondent No. 2 were forced to
live with the petitioner, who happens to be their grandfather
because there was nobody else to look after them once their
father died on account of the incident which led to registration
of case against the main accused and respondent No. 2.
18. In view of aforesaid facts peculiar to this case, the
circumstance relating to custody of children with the petitioner
cannot be read against respondent No. 2. Similarly it is not in
dispute that the deceased had died on account of gunshot
wound, which was fired by main accused Doulat Ram.
Therefore, the role of respondent No. 2 cannot be equated with
the role of main accused. Learned trial court while taking
notice of these circumstances has taken into consideration
only the relevant factors. Thus, the trial court has not
committed any illegality while enlarging respondent No. 2 on
bail.
19. The contention of the petitioner that there is an
apprehension that respondent No. 2 would tamper with the
prosecution witnesses is not supported with any material. In
the application made by the petitioner with the police no
instance of any attempt on the part of respondent No. 2 to
tamper with the prosecution witnesses has been mentioned.
The State in its reply to the present application has not
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 9 of 10
2026:JKLHC-JMU:712
brought to the notice of this court any incident that would go
on to show that respondent No. 2 has misused the concession
of bail or she has tried to tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. In fact, the record of the trial court would show
that respondent No. 2 has been appearing before the said
court on each and every date of hearing.
20. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not
find any ground to cancel the bail that has been granted to
respondent No. 2 by the learned trial court in terms of order
dated 23.12.2024. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It
shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach the trial
court for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 in case, at
any time during trial, she violates any condition of the bail.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
06.03.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
Bail App No. 35/2025 Page 10 of 10