SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a Jammu man accused in a 2014 murder case after observing that the prosecution had failed to conclude the trial despite the accused spending nearly twelve years in custody.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the order on May 29, 2026, while allowing a bail application filed by Kewal Sharma, a resident of Akhnoor, who has been lodged in District Jail Amballa, Jammu, since his arrest on June 6, 2014.
Sharma is facing trial in a case registered at Police Station Akhnoor under Sections 302 and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The trial is pending before the court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.
The High Court observed that the prosecution had taken more than eleven years to examine only twenty-four witnesses and had still not concluded its evidence. Out of thirty-five prosecution witnesses cited in the case, six had been dropped and two had died, while three witnesses still remained to be examined.
The court noted that the pace of the trial was far too slow to ignore in the context of the accused’s constitutional right to speedy justice under Article 21.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Udhay Singh Salaria along with Advocate Varun Anand argued that Sharma had been languishing in jail for almost twelve years while the prosecution repeatedly failed to complete its evidence. The defence also submitted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and lacked eyewitness testimony.
The bail plea was opposed by Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh, who argued that long incarceration alone could not become a ground for bail in a serious offence punishable under Section 302 RPC.
The High Court, however, found that despite repeated opportunities, the prosecution had failed to conclude the trial and had also not filed a response to the bail application.
Justice Oswal referred to the trial court record, including an order passed on February 25, 2026, in which strong displeasure had been expressed over the non-appearance of a prosecution witness, Rajinder Khajuria. The witness had reportedly cited engagement in VIP duty through a communication from the SSP Traffic Srinagar.
The High Court observed that even after a peremptory opportunity had been granted to the prosecution in December 2025 to conclude its evidence, delays continued.
Holding that the petitioner’s fundamental right to speedy trial had suffered an “egregious infringement,” the court relied upon the recent Supreme Court judgment in Vaibhav Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh, where the apex court had granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who had remained in custody for more than nine years.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that “howsoever grave the crime may be,” an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely if the right to speedy trial is denied.
The court also referred to an earlier judgment of the High Court in Raman Kumar versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, where bail had been granted after prolonged incarceration and repeated delays in trial proceedings.
Justice Oswal observed that while offences punishable with death or life imprisonment ordinarily attract stricter standards for grant of bail, constitutional protections under Article 21 cannot be ignored merely because the allegations are serious.
The court held that the prosecution had protracted the trial without sufficient justification and that the trial court too had failed to ensure expeditious disposal of the case.
Allowing the bail application, the High Court directed that Sharma be released on bail on furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs 50,000 each along with a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The court directed the accused to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, restrained him from leaving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the court, and barred him from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
It further observed that in the event of violation of any of the conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
The High Court also directed the trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
