SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to an undertrial accused in a 2017 murder case from Jammu, citing prolonged incarceration of over nine years, delay in trial, and apparent contradictions in eyewitness testimonies.
The order was passed by Justice Shahzad Azeem in Bail Application No. 215/2025, filed by Bhopinder Singh, a 51-year-old resident of Phinder, Jammu, who is presently lodged in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate AP Singh argued that the accused had been in custody since March 8, 2017, in connection with FIR No. 40/2017 registered at Police Station Miran Sahib under Sections 302 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The trial court had earlier rejected his bail plea on May 7, 2024.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by Gurdeep Kour, mother of the deceased Karamjit Singh, who alleged that on March 7, 2017, at around 6:15 pm, the accused, along with co-accused Pardeep Singh, shot dead her son outside a gurdwara in Phinder following an old enmity.
During the course of the trial, the prosecution cited 30 witnesses, of whom 18 have been examined so far, including four eyewitnesses identified as Gurdeep Kour, Daljeet Singh, Tarandeep Singh and Balwant Singh.
The High Court, while examining the record, noted discrepancies in the testimonies of these eyewitnesses. While the complainant stated that the accused fired at the deceased in the presence of all witnesses, one of the witnesses deposed that another eyewitness reached the spot after the incident, while another gave a differing account regarding the manner in which the shooting took place, including claims that the accused fired from behind a vehicle, a detail not mentioned in earlier statements.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that these contradictions cast doubt on the prosecution case and, coupled with the prolonged incarceration and incomplete trial, justified grant of bail. Reliance was also placed on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Anoop Singh v. UT of JK.
Opposing the plea, Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh, appearing for the Union Territory, argued that the offence was grave in nature and that there had been no delay attributable to the prosecution in examining witnesses.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that prolonged detention without conclusion of trial can tilt the balance in favour of bail.
The court noted that 12 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and the trial is likely to take further time. It held that continued incarceration in such circumstances would infringe upon the petitioner’s right to personal liberty.
Allowing the petition, the court directed that the accused be released on bail subject to furnishing a surety bond of Rs 1 lakh before the trial court and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jail superintendent.
The court further directed that the accused shall appear on every date of hearing, shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.
The High Court clarified that the observations made in the order are limited to the adjudication of the bail application and shall not affect the merits of the trial.
