At Jammu vs U.T Of J&K
2025 Latest Caselaw 2943 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

At Jammu vs U.T Of J&K on 5 December, 2025

Author: Rajnesh Oswal

Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

                                                                            2025:JKLHC-JMU:4000



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT JAMMU

                                                  Reserved on: 26.11.2025
                                                  Pronounced on: 05.12.2025
                                                  Uploaded on:.     05.12.2025
                                       Whether the operative part or full
                                       judgment is pronounced: Full judgment.
Bail App No. 6/2025

Sudesh Singh th.Parkasho Devi

                                                      ...Petitioner(S)/Appellant(s)
      Through: - Mr. Mehtab Gulzar, Advocate
             Vs.

U.T of J&K
                                                               ...RESPONDENT(S)
      Through: - Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE


                                 JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, who is named as an accused in the charge

sheet titled 'UT of J&K vs. Sudesh Singh' (arising out of FIR

No. 67/2020 dated 08.08.2020 for an offence under Section

302 IPC) and pending before the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Reasi (the trial court), has approached this court for

the grant of bail, following the trial court's earlier refusal.

2. It is stated that there is no direct evidence connecting the

applicant with the alleged offence. Out of the three eye-

witnesses cited by the prosecution to establish the

applicant's guilt, two have completely turned hostile, and the

third eye-witness has also failed to support the prosecution

case due to numerous contradictions in her statement.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:4000

Furthermore, out of a total of 25 witnesses, 17 have already

been examined by the learned trial court. There is no

material evidence except certain circumstantial evidence,

which, according to the applicant, is insufficient to establish

his involvement or warrant his conviction. The applicant

contends that he has been incarcerated for the last more

than four years, and this delay alone is sufficient itself for

the grant of bail.

3. The respondent has filed the response, stating that on

09.06.2020 at approximately 21:45 hours, information was

received through a reliable source that the dead body of a

female, Sapna Devi W/o Sudesh Singh R/o Thub, Tehsil

Thakrakote, was found hanging from a tree near her house.

Due to the suspicious nature of her death, proceedings

under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated at Police Post

Thanole. Following the conclusion of the inquiry and receipt

of the postmortem report, FIR No. 67/2020 was registered.

During the investigation, the involvement of the applicant,

who is the deceased's husband, surfaced, and the charge

sheet was subsequently filed before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Reasi, on 31.10.2020. It is further contended

that the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail, as

he is an accused in the serious offence of murdering his

wife.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:4000

4. Mr. Mehtab Gulzar, learned counsel for the applicant has

submitted that two eye witnesses, namely, Leelo Devi and

Krishan Singh, have not at all supported the case of the

prosecution and only third witness, namely Ram Pyari has

made statement thereby implicating not only the applicant

but also his sister, though falsely. He has further stated that

statement of Ram Pyari does not connect the applicant with

the commission of offence and that she has made

exaggerations in her statement before the learned trial court.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned GA has submitted

that PW Ram Pyari has categorically supported the

prosecution case and the neighbours of the applicant have

also corroborated the prosecution story. He has submitted

that in view of embargo contained in section 497 Cr.P.C, the

applicant is not entitled to bail and that the evidence cannot

be appreciated at the stage of consideration of a bail

application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The record depicts that 18 of the 27 cited witnesses have

been examined. Out of three eye-witnesses presented by the

prosecution, two, namely Leelo Devi (the applicant's sister)

and Krishan Singh (the applicant's step-brother), have not

supported the prosecution case. Conversely, PW Ram Pyari,

a neighbor of the applicant, has implicated both the

2025:JKLHC-JMU:4000

applicant and Leelo Devi (the applicant's sister) in the

occurrence. Besides, there are other witnesses as well,

namely, Bimla Devi, Gajay Singh, Dewan Singh, Hari Ram

and Sharna Devi, who have been examined before the

learned trial court and they have stated that the applicant

used to quarrel with the deceased. The statement of Dr.

Neeraj Koul has also been recorded and as per his opinion,

deceased Sapna Devi died due to asphyxia because of

strangulation.

8. It is settled law that while considering an application for the

grant of bail, the court cannot appreciate the evidence;

however, it can look into the evidence to ascertain whether

there exists prima facie material against the accused. In

Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that "the determination of whether a

case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of

numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the

severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the

involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket

formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant

or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case

is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into

a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish

beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the

accused. That is a matter for trial".

2025:JKLHC-JMU:4000

9. After having examined the record, this Court is of the

considered view that, at this stage, it is not possible to arrive

at a conclusion that there is no evidence against the

applicant warranting his release on bail. Whether there are

exaggerations or not and if they are, then their effect can be

considered only while appreciating the evidence after

conclusion of trial and not while considering bail

application.

10. So far as the issue of delay in trial is concerned, the charge

was framed against the applicant only in April 2021. As of

29.11.2024, 18 witnesses have been examined. The offence

under Section 302 IPC is punishable with death or life

imprisonment, and therefore, the applicant has not suffered

prolonged incarceration necessitating his release on bail.

11. Viewed thus, this court does not find any merit in the

present bail application, and the same is accordingly

dismissed. Needless to say, any observation made by this

Court is solely for the purpose of deciding this bail

application and shall not be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 05.12.2025 Karam Chand.

Whether the Judgment is speaking: No/Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: No/Yes