IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – “Bail is rule and jail is an exception”, is not an absolute rule – It is a sort of a guiding principle that should be kept in mind along with facts of each case and statutory restrictions, while considering prayer for bail.

ORDER

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the present batch of appeals, the appellants (total six in number), impugn rejection of their bail applications by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu [High Court] vide the common impugned order dated 4th November, 2025.

3. For brevity, the details of the respective bail applications filed before the High Court by each appellant are reproduced in a tabular form, hereunder:

4. On 30th April 2024, the complainant, Jagir Singh, filed a complaint at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, alleging that several individuals attempted to dispossess his brother Balbir Singh from a parcel of land measuring 33 marlas in the Greater Kailash (Chowadi) area of Jammu for grabbing the same and in pursuance thereof, the accused persons (Parshottam, Ravinder, Rakshat, Sheikh Mehmood and others) along with their goons attacked the brother of the complainant and his son. This led to registration of an FIR bearing No. 39 of 2024 dated 30th April, 2024 with P.S. Gangyal under Sections 307, 323, 447 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] against the aforesaid four named accused.

5. Avtar Singh, the son of Balbir Singh, succumbed to the injuries suffered by him prompting the police to add Sections 302, 506 and 120B, IPC.

6. All the appellants were arrested on 3rd May, 2024. During the course of investigation, a total of 12 accused were arrested.

7. The chargesheet filed upon completion of investigation, inter alia, consists of an alleged CCTV recording of the incident, recordings of calls exchanged by and between the accused persons, and accounts of various eyewitnesses. The prosecution proposed to examine a total of 44 witnesses.

8. On 28th November, 2025, a coordinate bench of this Court issued notice on the special leave petition of Sheikh Mehmood, followed by notice in the special leave petitions of the other accused on 19th December, 2025, giving rise to the lead appeal and the connected appeals, respectively.

9. Vide order dated 16th January, 2026, we requested the Sessions Court seized of the trial, viz. the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [Trial Court], to fix two consecutive dates every week for recording of evidence of the eyewitnesses. It was also recorded that prayers of the appellants for release on bail would be considered, depending upon the progress made in regard to completion of cross-examination of all the eyewitnesses. Such direction was made since the trial was being unnecessarily protracted.

10. The appeals were thereafter listed on 17th February, 2026, 20th February, 2026, and 6th April, 2026. Vide order dated 6th April, 2026, expressing our inclination to refuse the prayer for grant of bail, we encouraged the trial court to complete recording of cross examination of the eyewitnesses as early as possible, preferably by 25th May, 2026. On 27th May, 2026, upon hearing learned senior counsel/counsel appearing for the respective parties, we closed the hearing.

11. Several notes have been tendered across the bar by learned counsel for the parties, which we propose to take into consideration.

12. We were informed across the bar that out of the alleged 6 (six) eyewitnesses, recording of evidence of five of them is complete, whereas the sixth eyewitness has been dropped from the list of proposed witnesses.

13. For completeness, the case of each accused is discussed hereinafter.

SHEIKH