Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 2, 2025

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 8

Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15

Judgments/Orders:

J&K High Court Denies Bail In Rape & Suicide Case, Cautions Against Granting Bail In Heinous Offences Immediately Post Framing Of Charges

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs U.T of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 6

Stressing that bail should not ordinarily be granted in heinous offences like rape or murder once the trial begins, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused bail to the accused in a case of rape and abetment to suicide. Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that courts should refrain from granting bail just after framing charges or before the victim is examined, especially in sensitive cases.

No Appeal Lies Against Compromise Decree, Party May Only Challenge Consent Decree Before Court Which Passed It: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Reaffirming the principle that no appeal lies against a compromise decree the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court court emphasised that a party seeking to avoid such a decree must challenge it before the court that issued it, proving the invalidity of the underlying agreement.

Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Des Raj Nagpal Engineers & Contractors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing opportunity to the appellants to correct the irregularity.

Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that procedural delays in informing the Designated Authority about seizures under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) do not render the proceedings invalid.

“The information though required to be communicated within 48 hours of the seizure, the delay, if any, caused will not by itself be fatal. The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law”, the court comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta explained.

Evaluating Evidence While Framing Charges Shouldn't Become Mini-Trial: J&K High Court Quashes Corruption Charges Against Ex-JMC Commissioner

Case Title:Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

Highlighting the principles of law governing the framing of charges in criminal cases the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges, the material to be evaluated by the court is limited to what the prosecution has produced and relied upon.

Ex-Gratia Relief Cannot Replace Court Ordered Compensation: J&K High Court Upholds ₹20 Lakh Compensation For Electrocution Victim

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Abrar Ahmad Tantray

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 11

Upholding a writ court judgment directing the Power Development department (PDD) to pay Rs. 20 lakh as compensation to a young electrocution victim the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the policy of granting ex-gratia relief cannot preclude courts from awarding appropriate compensation to victims of electrocution.

Section 138 Of NI Act Warrants Strict Construction, Compliance With Proviso Clauses Is A Precondition Before Prosecution: J&K High Court

Case Title: Kulbhushan Gupta Vs Bishambar Ram

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Quashing multiple complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 citing failure to adhere to mandatory conditions laid down in the Act the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Section 138 of the Act being penal in nature, indisputably, warrants strict construction, hence making compliance with its proviso clauses (a), (b), and (c) essential before initiating prosecution.

J&K High Court Disposes PIL On Safety Of Judicial Complexes Upon Being Informed Of 'Significant Progress' Made To Improve Security Measures

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs Nemo

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 13

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh disposed of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the security arrangements at judicial complexes across the Union Territories.

Acknowledging the extensive measures undertaken to fortify the security infrastructure in both High Court and District Court premises, the bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri noted that substantial progress had been made in ensuring a safer environment for judicial officers, advocates, litigants, and visitors.

Confession Must Be of Sterling Value & Corroborated: J&K High Court Upholds Conviction Under Prevention Of Terrorism Act

Case Title: Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the conviction of a former police constable under Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), emphasizing that a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA must be of sterling value and corroborated before it can be relied upon.

Shedding light on the mandate of Sec 32 of POTA Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed,

“.. that before a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA is relied upon and accepted admissible in evidence, it must be of sterling value inspiring confidence of the Court. As a matter of prudence, the Court relying upon such confession must insist for corroboration”

Summons U/S 91 CrPC Cannot Be Issued During Preliminary Verification As It Is Not An 'Investigation': J&K High Court

Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, and cannot be exercised at the stage of preliminary verification.

In quashing summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the petitioner, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that a preliminary verification is not an "investigation" under the Code, and hence, such summons lacked legal jurisdiction.