Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 20 - May 26, 2024

Ashok Kumar Vs State 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Abdul Rashid & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121

Rafaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 122

Abdul Basit Vs University of Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad Malik 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 124

Manzoor Hussain Vs Syed Mohsin Abbas 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 125

Owais Naseer Sheikh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 126

Masarat Jan Vs Fayaz Ahmad Parray 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 127

Judgments/Orders:

Section 313 CrPC Is A Safeguard In The Trial Process, Court Must Present Each Material Circumstance Separately To Accused: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Vs State.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120

Reiterated the importance of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as a vital safeguard for the accused in a fair trial the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the trial court's duty to ensure the accused is informed of all incriminating evidence against them and is provided an opportunity to explain themselves.

“The purpose of putting material evidence distinctively and separately to the accused is to enable the accused to tender his explanation and if the incriminating evidence is not put in the manner aforesaid, then it amounts to condemning the accused unheard”, the bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.

Detailed Examination & Analysis Of Witness Statements Not Appropriate To Determine Merits Of Bail Application: J&K High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a detailed examination of witness statements is not permissible at the bail stage, especially when the charges involve serious offenses with severe punishments.

Rejecting the bail pleas of two men accused in the 2017 killing of two Special Police Officers (SPOs) in Doda district a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“There may be some contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements made during cross-examination, but it is not open to this Court to minutely examine and analyze their statements at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioners”.

Detaining Authority Not Precluded From Issuing Preventive Detention Order Merely Because Individual Is Already Undergoing Trial: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rafaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 122

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a detaining authority is not precluded from issuing a preventive detention order merely because the individual is already undergoing trial for substantive offenses.

Dismissing the habeas corpus petition filed by Rafaqat Ali challenging his preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“.. merely because a person is undergoing trial in substantive offences, the detaining authority cannot be debarred from passing an order of preventive detention against him, if it is satisfied that such person is indulging in illicit traffic of drugs”.

J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty On Kashmir University For Wrongful Application Of Evaluation Statute

Case Title: Abdul Basit Vs University of Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on the University of Kashmir for wrongly and arbitrarily applying a statute, forcing a student to reappear for an examination he had already passed.

Invoking the Public Law Doctrine a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“.. the illegality and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is manifest and writ large, besides being patently wrongful, undoubtedly constituting a fit case for grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner and the Court being conscious of the fact that there is no quantification based on actual loss, but then the award of damages to the petitioner payable by the Respondent-University is in Public Law”.

Concept Of “Necessary Party” In Writ Petition Is Far Broader Than In A Purely Civil Suit: J&K High Court

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad Malik

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 124

Setting a precedent regarding who can be considered a "necessary party" in writ petitions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the concept of a necessary party in a writ petition is far broader than in a purely civil suit.

Shedding light on a much broader application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) concerning writ petitions a bench of Justices Tashi Rabstan & M A Chowdhary observed,

“The Writ Court cannot keep itself confined merely to the litigants appearing before it or on the record available nor will it keep itself confined only to the lis before it, but will also take into account the consequences or the effect which the decision will have or is likely to have on the interests of others who may not be wholly necessary for decision of the issue at hand…Viewed from this angle, the concept of necessary party in a purely Civil Suit and a Writ Petition cannot be one and the same”

Civil Courts Must Notify Custodian Evacuees Property When Dealing With Evacuee Land Disputes: J&K High Court Clarifies

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs Syed Mohsin Abbas

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 125

Clarifying the legal procedure for disputes concerning evacuee property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that civil courts must notify the Custodian Evacuees Property when taking cognizance of a civil suit regarding evacuee property.

Not Mentioning Grant Of Bail In Detention Order Is Serious Lapse, Gives Rise To Inference Of Non-Application Of Mind: J&K High Court

Case Title: Owais Naseer Sheikh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 126

Quashing a detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has highlighted that the non-mention of the petitioner's bail status indicates a clear non-application of mind, rendering the detention order unsustainable in the eyes of law.

[S.126(1)(b) CrPC] Liberal Interpretation Of Term "Resides" Is Essential To Realise Its Legislative Objective: J&K High Court

Case Title: Masarat Jan Vs Fayaz Ahmad Parray

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 127

Prioritizing the legal convenience of destitute wives, neglected children, and abandoned parents in legal proceedings for maintenance the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised a liberal interpretation of the term "resides" in Section 126 Clause (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

J&K High Court Directs Dept Action Against Commissioner Secretary For Barring Contractors Whose Relatives Were Involved In Anti-National Activities In Past

Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Malik Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 128

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a communication issued by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, which barred contractors from participating in tenders if their relatives were involved in anti-national activities in the past.