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

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”.

The case pertained to the killings of SPOs Kiker Singh and Mohd. Yunis who were allegedly attacked by militants at a police picket in Tanta, Doda in May 2017. The petitioners, Abdul Rashid and Shafkat Hussain, along with two others, were arrested by the police and charged with murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, and various offences under the Arms Act.

The petitioner's lawyer argued for bail on several grounds. First, they pointed to the lengthy incarceration of the accused, exceeding seven years, arguing that the delay in trial completion should not be attributed to them. Second, they contended that the prosecution's material witnesses had contradicted the prosecution case during cross-examination, weakening the prosecution's narrative.

Finally, they argued that two co-accused in the case had already been granted bail, and the petitioners deserved similar treatment.

The prosecution, on the other hand, presented a detailed account of the alleged crime based on the FIR and investigation.

Justice Dhar, in his judgment, acknowledged the lengthy detention period but pointed out that the delay was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictions on in-person hearings. He observed that the trial court proceedings had progressed steadily since the pandemic subsided, with the prosecution regularly producing witnesses.

“.. it is clear that whatever delay has been caused in progress of the trial, the same has been caused due to intervention of covid-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictions in physical hearing of the cases. This is an eventuality beyond the control of everybody”, the bench underscored.

On the issue of witness statements, the Court held that a minute examination of witness testimony is not appropriate at the bail stage. While the petitioners' counsel highlighted contradictions in some witness statements, the Court noted that these contradictions could be fully explored during the trial.

“A meticulous or detailed examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses may or may not bring out inconsistencies and contradictions on vital aspects of the case, but this is not the stage for this Court to undertake such an exercise as the same would amount to prejudging merits of the case”, the bench added.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the bench reiterated that the gravity of the offense and the existence of prima facie evidence against the accused are paramount considerations when deciding bail applications in serious cases.

The Court further found that the charges against the petitioners were severe, and the prosecution had presented a credible case with prima facie evidence to support those charges.

Regarding the bail granted to co-accused, the Court pointed out that their role in the alleged crime, as determined by the trial court, was significantly different from that of the petitioners.

Therefore, the Court declined to extend similar treatment to the petitioners and dismissed their bail petition.

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121

Mr.I.H.Bhat Advocate represented the petitioners, Mr.AdarshBhagat Government Advocate appeared for the UT

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment