The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the gravity of the charges, contradictions in witness statements, and the mid-stage of the trial when evaluating a bail application in a murder case.

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicants/petitioners, seeking grant of bail under Section 498 Cr.P.C. in FIR 152/2015 u/s 302/34 RPC of police station Kishatwar.

2. It has been stated in the instant bail application that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the real brothers and petitioner No. 3 is their father. All the three petitioners are facing criminal trial in case titled, Imtiaz Ahmed and Ors. Vs. State. for offences under Sections 302/34 RPC, which is pending disposal in the Hon’ble Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kishtwar. The case was initially registered pursuant to an FIR being No. 152/2015, registered at Police Station, Kishtwar on 05th September, 2015 for offences under Section 302/34 RPC. It has also been stated that in the charge-sheet, the prosecution in all has cited 41 witnesses for allegedly proving the charges against the petitioners, besides the material relied upon by way of documents forming part of the charge-sheet. Perusal of the police report clearly shows that besides petitioner No. 1, the Investigating Agency had apprehended four other persons, namely, Nishat Ahmed S/o Mohd. Sikander Mir R/o Hullar; Abdul Jabbar S/o Ghulam Rasool Khan R/o Hulla; Muzaffar Hussain and Shehzad Ahmed sons of Shamsdin R/o Hullar, but later on they were left by giving them the benefit under Section 169 Cr. P.C. The accused persons were charge-sheeted by the Court below and eleven witnesses have been examined, which includes four eye witnesses and seven other witnesses. In the aforesaid FIR, the name of only one accused, i.e., petitioner No. 1 has been given while the names of other petitioners have not been alleged. There is delay in recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It has also come in the investigation that some of the prosecution witnesses, who are the real relatives of the deceased were demanding money from the persons of the area by threatening them to implicate in the murder case if they do not pay the demanded money.

3. The petitioners’ counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled, Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1976 AIR (SC) 2263, Dharmendra Chandulal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 AIR (SC) 395 and Krishnegowda and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police, 2017 (3) Supreme 229 as well as on the judgments of this High Court in cases titled, Ahmad Shiekh and Ors. Vs. State, 1975 Kash LJ 195 and Tarlok Chand Mahajan Vs. State, 2005 (3) JKJ 486.”

4. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that the accused have committed heinous offence and they are not entitled to any bail for the offences, for which they have been charged. The accused are facing the trial in the grave offence, which is punishable upto life imprisonment or death sentence. Section 34 is applicable in the present set of the case, so no case is made out for grant of bail. The Trial Court has already dismissed the bail by way of reasoned order.

5. I have considered the rival contention.

6. From the Photostat copies of the record annexed with the petition, it is evident that the accused in pursuance of common criminal intention committed the offence of murder of the deceased.

7. The brief facts of the case are that from the reliable source, information was received in Police Station, Kishtwar on 05th September, 2015 that accused No. 1, i.e. Imtiyaz Ahmed has committed the murder of one person, namely, Nissar Ahmed by inflicting stab injury with Krich in his belly. On this, investigation was commenced, which culminated into filing of charge-sheet before the Court below. From the investigation, it was found that the accused persons with common criminal intention committed the murder of Nissar Ahmed S/o Shabir Bhagwan R/o Hullar Kishtwar. The alleged stab injury was inflicted by Imtiyaz Ahmed in furtherance of common intention shared with other accused due to prior enmity with the deceased regarding plying of