SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has acquitted Habibullah Kumar, a former In-charge Establishment Clerk at the Block Development Office (BDO), Larkipora Shahabad, Anantnag, in a 2009 bribery case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had demanded or voluntarily accepted illegal gratification. Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the trial court’s conviction and two-year sentence, observing that the prosecution’s case was weakened by contradictions in the complainant’s evidence, the absence of independent verification of the alleged initial demand and the failure of the shadow witness to see the alleged exchange of money.
The judgment was pronounced on August 21, 2026, after being reserved on July 30 by a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar. The court also dismissed the charge sheet against Kumar and ordered that his bail and surety bonds stand discharged.
Kumar had challenged the judgment of the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Anantnag, dated August 21, 2025, by which he had been convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court had sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 21,000. In default of payment, he was to undergo another six months of simple imprisonment.
The case originated on September 10, 2009, when Bashir Ahmad Dar, a Helper posted at the BDO office in Larkipora Shahabad, lodged a complaint with the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. Dar alleged that he and five other Helpers had been granted in-situ promotion with effect from November 1, 2008, and that Kumar, who was then working as Incharge Establishment, had demanded Rs 300 from each employee for preparing their arrears bills.
According to the prosecution, Dar collected Rs 1,800 from the six employees and approached the Vigilance Organization, which registered FIR No. 25/2009 under the corruption law and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code. A trap team headed by Inspector Farooq Hussain Mir was subsequently constituted, with Nazir Ahmad Lone, a Senior Assistant in the Commercial Tax Department, Srinagar, associated as an independent witness.
The prosecution case was that Dar produced 18 currency notes of Rs 100 denomination before the trap team. After a pre-trap demonstration, the team proceeded to the BDO office. Dar entered Kumar’s room while Lone remained outside near a window. The prosecution alleged that Kumar demanded and accepted Rs 1,800 from Dar and placed the money in the back pocket of his trousers.
The vigilance officials subsequently recovered the money from Kumar’s pocket. His hands and the pocket of his trousers were washed in sodium carbonate solution, which, according to the prosecution, turned pink. The solutions were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Srinagar. Kumar was arrested at the spot.
After investigation, the Vigilance Organization found the offences established and, following sanction for prosecution issued through Government Order No. 19-GAD(Vig.) of 2010 dated March 29, 2010, presented the charge sheet before the trial court. Charges were framed on December 13, 2010, and Kumar pleaded not guilty.
The High Court, however, found serious shortcomings in the prosecution evidence. Justice Dhar noted that the prosecution was required to establish three essential elements in a case of this nature: the initial demand for illegal gratification, demand and voluntary acceptance of the tainted money during the trap, and recovery of the money from the accused.
On the question of the alleged initial demand, the High Court found the evidence particularly doubtful. Dar had stated in his examination-in-chief that all six employees had contributed Rs 300 each towards the alleged bribe. But during cross-examination he said that the complaint had wrongly recorded that he had collected Rs 300 from each of the other employees.
More significantly, the five employees on whose behalf the money was allegedly collected did not support the prosecution’s version. They told the court that they had neither contributed money towards the alleged bribe nor had Kumar demanded any money from them. One of them, Manzoor Ahmad Mir, also stated that there was a land dispute between Dar and Kumar.
Justice Dhar held that these contradictions struck at the prosecution’s allegation of an initial demand. The court also found fault with the manner in which the trap was initiated, noting that the Trap Laying Officer had not independently verified the allegation of bribery before proceeding with the trap.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court observed that an independent verification of the alleged demand by the Trap Laying Officer assumes significance, particularly where there may be prior animosity between the complainant and the accused. Such verification, the court noted, could include recording a telephonic conversation between the complainant and the suspected public servant.
In Kumar’s case, Justice Dhar found that there was no evidence showing that the Trap Laying Officer had actually verified the alleged demand before registration of the FIR. Although Inspector Farooq Hussain Mir claimed during cross-examination that he had checked whether there was discord between the complainant and Kumar, he could not give specific details of that verification.
The court also noted evidence suggesting strained relations between the two men. The BDO, Gul Mohammad Ashraf Jalali, testified that Dar had been pressing for the engagement of his brother as a daily wager and described Kumar as an honest employee who discharged his duties properly. The BDO also described Dar as short-tempered. Another prosecution witness stated that there was a land dispute between Dar and Kumar.
The High Court consequently held that the prosecution had failed to establish the initial demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The court also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged trap itself. The independent shadow witness, Nazir Ahmad Lone, had remained outside Kumar’s room during the crucial interaction. He testified that he could see inside through a window and could hear that there was an exchange of words, but he did not see Kumar demand or accept the money. He also stated that he did not understand what the two men were discussing.
The other members of the trap team likewise admitted during cross-examination that they had not witnessed the exchange of money because they were outside the room.
Justice Dhar said that, in effect, Dar was the only witness who claimed to have actually seen the alleged demand and acceptance of the money. The court held that his evidence required careful scrutiny because of the evidence indicating prior hostility between him and Kumar and because his account was not independently corroborated.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) and its own June 30, 2026 judgment in Falil ur Rehman v. UT of J&K, which had considered the law on reliance upon the testimony of a trap witness. The court reiterated that there is no absolute rule requiring corroboration of a bribe giver’s testimony, but such evidence must be scrutinised carefully, particularly where circumstances indicate that the witness may be partisan or motivated.
In the present case, Justice Dhar concluded that Dar’s testimony could not safely be relied upon without corroboration. The court held that once his evidence concerning demand and acceptance was excluded, there was no other direct or circumstantial evidence establishing that Kumar had voluntarily accepted the bribe.
The court also rejected the argument that recovery of the tainted money from Kumar’s pocket, by itself, established the offence. Kumar had consistently maintained that Dar had forcibly thrust the money into his pocket. The High Court noted that the shadow witness had heard Kumar immediately protesting that he had been falsely implicated when the vigilance officials apprehended him.
According to the judgment, that immediate conduct was admissible in evidence and supported Kumar’s explanation that the money had been thrust into his pocket. The court therefore held that he had succeeded in providing a plausible explanation for the recovery.
Justice Dhar further found that the trial court’s judgment contained substantial inconsistencies. The trial court itself had noted at various points that there was no evidence proving an earlier demand, that the shadow witness had not directly observed the transaction, and that the prosecution evidence regarding demand and acceptance was not unimpeachable. Yet, despite recording these deficiencies, it had proceeded to convict Kumar.
The High Court particularly criticised the trial court for recording that the shadow witness had confirmed seeing the physical exchange of currency notes, saying this amounted to a patent misreading of the witness’s statement. The witness had expressly stated that he did not see the exchange of money.
Justice Dhar also held that the trial court had erred in treating the absence of proof of an initial demand as immaterial. Once the prosecution failed to establish the initial demand, the court said, the subsequent trap proceedings could not cure that fundamental deficiency.
“Despite noticing the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case,” the High Court held, the trial court had proceeded to convict Kumar, making its findings “not only inconsistent and contrary to each other” but also perverse.
The High Court accordingly set aside the August 21, 2025 conviction and sentence, dismissed the charge sheet and acquitted Kumar of the charges. His bail and surety bonds were ordered to be discharged, and the trial court record was directed to be returned along with a copy of the judgment.
Kumar was represented before the High Court by advocate Gowhar Majeed Dalal, while the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadiri, assisted by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar and has been marked reportable.
