SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to Hamid Hussain, who is facing trial for the alleged murder of his wife in Doda district, citing his prolonged incarceration of more than 10 years and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani allowed Hussain’s successive bail application in FIR No. 19/2016 registered at Police Station Thathri, Doda, under Sections 302 and 109 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The court held that prolonged detention without a reasonably expeditious trial raised concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
In its judgment pronounced on October 14 and uploaded on October 21, the court noted that only 23 of the 50 prosecution witnesses had been examined, leaving more than 25 witnesses to be examined. It observed that the remaining evidence and further proceedings were likely to take considerable time.
The court directed Hussain’s release on bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 2 lakh each, subject to specified conditions, including restrictions on travel abroad, interference with prosecution witnesses and contact with the deceased woman’s family or relatives until the conclusion of the trial.
The case dates back to April 29, 2016, when the FIR was registered following a complaint alleging the murder of Hussain’s wife. The prosecution has alleged that Hussain and other accused persons were involved in her death, while the accused have yet to face the final determination of guilt in the ongoing trial.
The court noted that charges were framed against Hussain and the co-accused on February 22, 2017, when the trial court also called upon the prosecution to produce its evidence. Despite the passage of years, the trial remains incomplete.
The High Court recorded that, when Hussain’s earlier regular bail application was rejected by the trial court on December 17, 2024, only 19 of the 50 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The number had increased to 23 by the time the High Court considered the successive bail plea.
Hussain had approached the High Court after the Additional Sessions Judge, Doda, dismissed his earlier bail application. He argued that he had remained in custody since his arrest on April 29, 2016, while the trial had made insufficient progress despite repeated hearings.
His counsel submitted that the prosecution’s failure to ensure the timely examination of witnesses had prolonged the proceedings and infringed his client’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The defence also argued that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the allegations against Hussain lacked sufficient prima facie support.
The defence further submitted that the prosecution had examined only five witnesses during nearly 50 hearings between September 10, 2021, and December 24, 2024. It also pointed out that the co-accused had already been granted bail.
Opposing the plea, the Jammu and Kashmir Government argued that the allegations involved a serious offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and that the gravity of the crime weighed against granting bail.
The prosecution alleged that Hussain had pressed his wife’s neck, rendered her semi-conscious and then poured kerosene oil on her before setting her on fire. According to the State’s submissions, Hussain allegedly made a disclosure while in police custody, following which clothes bearing traces of kerosene oil were recovered. The prosecution also referred to the recovery of ornaments allegedly connected with the case.
The State further alleged that a dispute had arisen between the couple in March 2016. It maintained that releasing Hussain could create a risk of his influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or absconding during the trial.
The High Court, however, observed that the evidence recorded so far was circumstantial in nature and said it would refrain from commenting on its merits at this stage to avoid prejudging the case before the trial concluded.
The court examined several Supreme Court judgments recognising the right to a speedy trial, including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Ashim alias Asim Kumar Haranth Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency.
Referring to the principles laid down in these cases, the High Court reiterated that the seriousness of an alleged offence does not, by itself, eliminate the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and delays in completing the trial raise concerns under Article 21.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, which emphasised that the right to a speedy trial remains relevant even in serious criminal cases and that the indefinite detention of an undertrial cannot be justified merely by pointing to the gravity of the allegations.
After considering the submissions of both sides, the evidence recorded during the trial and the expected time required to complete the proceedings, the High Court concluded that granting bail subject to appropriate safeguards would meet the ends of justice.
Under the conditions imposed, Hussain must surrender his passport, if he holds one, before the trial court and cannot travel outside India without its permission. He has also been directed not to threaten, intimidate or unduly influence any prosecution witness yet to be examined, and to remain present at trial hearings unless exempted by the court.
The High Court further directed that Hussain must not confront the deceased woman’s family or relatives until the trial concludes. It made clear that the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions are violated.
The court directed the Registry to issue a formal release order after the requisite bonds are furnished and accepted, subject to the jail authorities obtaining the required personal bond.
The order concerns bail pending trial and does not determine Hussain’s guilt or innocence in the murder case.
