SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of a 57-year-old Rajouri resident accused in a June 2026 attack case, holding that the investigation is still at an early stage, five accused remain absconding and key evidence, including the statement of an injured person and recovery of alleged weapons, is yet to be secured.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the order in Bail App No. 147/2026, pronounced on September 1 and uploaded on September 2, concerning Kewal Krishan, who is lodged in District Jail, Rajouri. The case relates to FIR No. 314/2026, registered at Police Station Rajouri on June 12 under Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, besides Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.
The court noted that Krishan had earlier sought bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, but the plea was rejected on July 11, 2026, when the injured persons were still receiving treatment at a hospital in Ludhiana. The present petition was therefore a successive bail application, requiring the accused to establish a material change in circumstances.
Krishan’s counsel argued that such a change had occurred after injured persons Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi were discharged from the Ludhiana hospital. It was also submitted that the accused was not present at the alleged scene of the incident at about 9.20 pm on June 12 and was attending to his business at his petrol pump. His counsel relied on CCTV footage from the petrol pump, claiming that it showed his continuous presence there during the relevant period.
The defence further submitted that no specific overt act had been attributed to Krishan, no weapon had been recovered from him and his continued detention should not amount to pre-trial punishment.
The prosecution opposed the plea, maintaining that the investigation was continuing and that substantial steps remained pending. According to the status placed before the court, two accused persons—Kewal Kumar Sharma and Ujjwal Tara—had been arrested and were in judicial custody, while five others remained absconding.
The five accused whose arrests were pending were identified as Ritish Saryal, Aryan, Sahil Sharma, Arun Sharma alias Sanju Saryal and Suraj Sharma alias Happy Tara, all residents of Rajouri district.
The prosecution also submitted that the alleged weapons used in the offence had not yet been recovered. The statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi was also yet to be recorded and his medical reports were awaited. Police had, however, seized the vehicle allegedly used in the incident and collected material through witness statements and analysis of call detail records.
The complainant, Neeraj Sharma, who is the father of one injured person and uncle of the other, was allowed by the High Court to be impleaded as a respondent in the bail proceedings.
Opposing bail, the complainant alleged that the victims were attacked as part of a pre-planned conspiracy after their path was blocked while they were returning from their shop. According to the allegations placed before the court, the assailants used hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons described as Toka and other weapons.
The complainant also referred to an earlier alleged assault on Nikhil Bakshi involving 15-16 persons, including some of the accused in the present case, for which FIR No. 181/2026 was registered at Police Station Rajouri. It was alleged that the victims had subsequently received threats.
Another issue before the court concerned the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents. The respondents pointed to three previous FIRs, including FIR Nos. 470/2012 and 486/2012, both under provisions of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code and stated to be pending before the competent court, and FIR No. 35/2024 under Sections 353, 332, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was stated to be under investigation.
The complainant alleged that the 2024 FIR had not been disclosed in the bail application. The applicant’s counsel submitted that Krishan was unaware of its registration.
The High Court held that the discharge of the injured persons from hospital, by itself, did not constitute sufficient material change in circumstances because Bakshi’s statement had still not been recorded and his medical reports remained awaited.
Justice Nargal further observed that the investigation had not reached a stage at which the concerns raised by the prosecution could be treated as merely speculative. Five accused were still at large, the statement of an injured person remained pending and the alleged weapons had not been recovered.
The court emphasised that a successive bail plea must be considered in light of the reasons for rejection of the earlier application and that merely repeating grounds already considered would not justify a different conclusion.
The court consequently declined to grant regular bail to Kewal Krishan at the present stage of the investigation.
