JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences under Section 302 and 120-B IPC before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla (for short “the trial court”), have moved the instant application for grant of bail.

2) In the application, it is contended that the petitioners are in custody for last more than five years in connection with FIR No.02/2020 of Police Station, Bijhama, Uri, despite being innocent. It has been submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and death of the victim was a result of suicide and not homicide. It has been submitted that the petitioners had filed an application before the learned trial court for grant of bail which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2025 despite the fact that all the material witnesses have already been examined. It has been submitted that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioners violates their right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3) On merits, it has been submitted that forensic evidence completely demolishes case of the prosecution, inasmuch as the recovery that was effected from the kitchen of the accused was relating to Zinc Phosphide whereas the poison detected in the viscera of the deceased was found to be Organo Phosphorus Insecticide. It has been contended that out of 33 listed witnesses, 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and none of these witnesses has attributed any specific act or role to the petitioners and there is no evidence on record with regard to the conspiracy.

4) The respondents have contested the bail application by filing their reply. In the reply it has been submitted that the petitioners are involved in a heinous crime of murder, as such, they cannot be enlarged on bail unless it is shown that they are not guilty of the said offence. It has been contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners, if enlarged on bail, would jump the concession of bail and will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It has also been contended that there is sufficient material on record of the trial court to connect the petitioners with the crime.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have also gone through record of the trial court.

6) As per prosecution case, on 24.01.2020, Police Station, Bijhama, received information from reliable sources that at Bela Reshiwari adjacent to a bridge on right side of the road, an unknown person was found in unconscious condition. The said person was taken to hospital at Uri by some passersby but the doctors declared him brought dead. On receiving this information, the police started inquest proceedings during which the dead body was taken into custody. The deceased was identified as Mohammad Syed Abasi. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted whereafter it was handed over to the family members for its burial. The mobile cellphone of the deceased was seized and the statements of the witnesses under Section 175 of Cr. P. C were recorded.

7) Upon completion of inquest proceedings, it was revealed that cause of death of the deceased was poisoning, therefore, FIR No.02/2020 for offences under Section 302 and 120-B of IPC was registered with Police Station, Bijhama, and investigation of the case was set into motion. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the suspects were also questioned.

8) After investigation of the case, it was revealed that for the last five years, the deceased was having a love affair with one lady, namely, Zahida Bano, who happens to be the sister of accused Shahida Begum and both were interested to marry but the family members of the lady were not happy with this relation. Accused Shahida Begum and another accused, namely, Hilal Ahmad Malik, who happens to be the brother of Zahida Bano, along with the petitioners herein, hatched a conspiracy under which they brought th