The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to a man named Khalid Hussain (also known as Munna) who had been in custody for more than seven years in connection with a 2018 murder case. The case involved the death of Mohd. Jabbar (also known as Ganju), alleged to have been murdered by Khalid Hussain and his co‑accused. The co‑accused had died during the pendency of the trial, leaving Khalid Hussain as the sole undertrial. The trial had begun before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, but even after many years, the prosecution evidence remained incomplete. Given this long incarceration and the circumstantial nature of the prosecution’s case, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail.
In its judgment, the High Court observed that while courts must give reasoned orders when granting or refusing bail, they must refrain from delving into or commenting on the merits or sufficiency of the prosecution evidence at this stage. The Court held that entering into the merits could prejudice the trial court, as comments could influence the trial court’s view of the evidence. The Court noted that the role of a High Court at the bail stage is limited to a “narrow overview” — it can assess factors like prolonged incarceration, the stage of trial, and risk of tampering with evidence, but cannot draw conclusions on guilt or innocence.
Applying this principle, the Court observed that by the time of the bail hearing, the key prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The remaining witnesses were mostly official witnesses whose evidence would be documentary — thereby reducing the risk of influencing witness testimony. Given that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and considering the long period of custody and the circumstantial nature of the case, the Court concluded that granting bail would not have a prejudicial effect on the ongoing trial. The High Court therefore allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the petitioner.
The Court’s ruling underscores that bail orders in pending trials must provide reasons, but those reasons must be strictly confined to bail parameters and must avoid any evaluation of the prosecution’s evidence or merits of the case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.