Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bhopinder Singh vs State Of J&K (Now Ut) on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
[Through Virtual Mode]
Bail App No. 215/2025
Reserved On: 24th of March, 2026.
Pronounced On: 2nd of April, 2026.
Uploaded On: 2nd of April, 2026.
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.
Bhopinder Singh, Age: 51 Years
S/O Pargat Singh
R/O Phinder, Jammu
A/P Central Jail Kot Balwal, Jammu.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr A. P. Singh, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K (now UT),
Through SHO Police Station Miran Sahib, Jammu.
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(JUDGMENT)
01. The Petitioner is an undertrial, who is charged for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/ 34 of the Ranbir
Penal Code [“RPC”] and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act [“IA Act”],
seeks bail by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], after having
similar prayer stand rejected by the learned Trial Court.
02. PW1- Gurdeep Kour, the mother of the deceased-Karamjit
Singh, on 07 March 2017, lodged a report at Police Station Miran Sahib,
alleging therein that at about 6:15 PM, while she was going to Gurudwara,
the accused-Bhopinder Singh (Petitioner herein), along with co-accused,
Bail App No. 215/2025Page 2 of 6
mounted a murderous attack on his son, who was standing outside the
Gurudwara, Phinder, and, in this process, the accused-Bhopinder Singh shot
dead her son.
03. The aforesaid information led to registration of a formal FIR,
being FIR No. 40/2017, and on culmination of investigation, a formal
charge sheet was laid against the Petitioner and co-accused for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/109 RPC and
Section 30 of the IA Act.
04. In order to drive the charge home against the accused, the
Prosecution has cited as many as 30 witnesses in the witness calendar and,
by now, 18 witnesses have been examined, including all the four
eyewitnesses, i.e., PW1-Gurdeep Kour, PW2-Daljeet Singh, PW3-
Tarandeep Singh and PW4-Balwant Singh, respectively.
05. Formal charges against the Petitioner and co-accused have
been drawn up for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
302/34 RPC and 30 IA Act vide Order dated 22 August 2017, whereas, the
Petitioner was formally arrested on 08 March 2017, as such, he has been
behind bars for over 09 years.
06. The Petitioner has moved similar application for grant of bail
before the Trial Court, which came to be rejected vide Order dated 07 May
2024. It is seen that the Trial Court, while rejecting the bail application, has
taken note of the stage of the trial and also that only 10 witnesses have been
examined so far. Therefore, according to the Trial Court, in absence of the
testimonies of remaining witnesses, the Court has not been in a position to
come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has not committed the crime.
07. Now, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail,
mainly on the ground that there are contradictions insofar as testimonies of
the eyewitnesses are concerned, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner has
Bail App No. 215/2025
Page 3 of 6
been suffering long incarceration and the Prosecution has yet to examine
about 12 witnesses out of 30 listed witnesses.
08. Besides making reference to the factual and legal grounds
urged in the Petition for enlargement of the Petitioner on bail, Mr A. P.
Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently argued that the
Petitioner is languishing in jail for more than nine years and there are
glaring contradictions in the testimonies of all the four eyewitnesses,
rendering the Prosecution story and the involvement of the Petitioner highly
doubtful. Therefore, he prays for the enlargement of the Petitioner on bail
on twin grounds of long incarceration and contradictions in the testimonies
of eye witnesses. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment titled ‘Anoop
Singh v. UT of J&K‘ passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No. 1398 of 2026 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
09. On the other hand, despite numerous opportunities have been
granted to the Respondent-UT, Objections have not been filed. However,
Mr Pawan Dev Singh, the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
the Respondent-UT, submitted that there is no delay on the part of the
Prosecution in examining the witnesses and that keeping in view the
heinousness of the crime, the Petitioner does not deserve the concession of
bail at this stage. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Precisely stated, the Prosecution case is that on 07 March
2017, the accused-Bhopinder Singh (Petitioner herein), accompanied by co-
accused Pardeep Singh, shot dead the deceased-Karamjeet Singh at around
6:15 PM near Gurudwara Phinder in the wake of old enmity and was thus
made to face trial for the commission of the aforementioned offences.
12. Admittedly, the Petitioner is behind bars over nine years. On
scanning the Challan, it is seen that out of 30 listed Prosecution witnesses,
PWs 1 to 4 are cited as eyewitnesses, including PW1-Gurdeep Kour, who is
Bail App No. 215/2025
Page 4 of 6
none other than the mother of the deceased. PW1-Gurdeep Kour has
deposed that the accused-Bhopinder Singh fired a gunshot at the deceased,
who was standing outside the Gurudwara, while accompanied by co-
accused and further deposed that PW2-Daljeet Singh, PW3-Tarandeep
Singh and PW4-Balwant Singh were also present on the spot. At the same
time, PW3-Tarandeep Singh, in his cross-examination, deposed that PW4-
Balwant Singh has come on the spot 10 minutes after the occurrence and
further deposed that when the deceased was shot at, he was standing at a
Pulli.
13. PW4-Balwant Singh has a different story to narrate, in that, he
deposed that the accused-Bhopinder Singh had fired at deceased by hiding
behind an Alto car, but this fact is missing in his statement recorded under
Section 164-A Cr.P.C.
14. In the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, prima facie, there
appears to be some discrepancy insofar as the manner and mode of alleged
occurrence is concerned.
15. In ‘Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813′, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting bail,
held as follows:
“17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the
ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the
Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
16. There is another very important aspect of the matter that, by
now, it has been over 09 years that the Petitioner is behind bars and the
Prosecution has yet to examine 12 witnesses, which may take some time
and, therefore, such long incarceration, when pitted against the ‘Right to
Liberty’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, clearly tilts the
balance in favour of grant of liberty.
Bail App No. 215/2025
Page 5 of 6
17. While considering the application for bail, the Court is
required to satisfy itself about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie
case and a detailed examination of evidence recorded during trial is to be
avoided.
18. For the limited purpose of present proceedings, the testimonies
of eyewitnesses have been taken note of and, on a cursory look, there
appears to be contradictions insofar as the manner of occurrence as well as
presence of accused is concerned. Therefore, considering the significant
delay in trial, the Petitioner’s long period of incarceration and prima facie
contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses as to the manner of assault
as well as presence of the Petitioner at the time of incidence, cumulatively
all these factors mandate the grant of bail so as to prevent the violation of
right of speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the present Petition is allowed and
the Petitioner is admitted to bail subject, however, on the following terms
and conditions that:
i. He shall furnish a surety bond in the amount of Rs.
1.00 lac to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court
and a bond of personal recognizance of the like
amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent of
concerned jail;
ii. He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and
every date of hearing;
iii. He shall not directly or indirectly make any
attempt to coerce or influence the Prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the Prosecution evidence;
and
iv. He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without the prior permission of the
Trial Court.
20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this
Order hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion with
Bail App No. 215/2025
Page 6 of 6
regard to the merits of the trial and that the same shall be confined to
disposal of the present bail application only.
21. Disposed of.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
April 2nd, 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
