CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is facing trial in charge-sheet titled “UT of J&K v. Kewal Sharma” arising out of FIR No.109/2014, registered with Police Station Akhnoor under Sections 302, 201 RPC, which is pending before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”).

2. The petitioner initially approached the Trial Court for the grant of bail but was unsuccessful; his application was dismissed by way of an order dated September 17, 2025. Consequently, the petitioner has preferred the instant application for bail, principally on the ground that the protracted delay in trial has violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on 6th June, 2014, and has ever since been languishing behind bars. It is further contended that the entire case against the petitioner hinges solely upon circumstantial evidence, completely bereft of any eyewitness testimony, and that the prosecution’s story is riddled with material inconsistencies. In precise terms, the petitioner submits that he has endured custody for a period exceeding eleven years, during which time the prosecution has been unable to conclude its evidence. Therefore, on account of such inordinate incarceration, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

4. This bail application was preferred on 24th November, 2025. Notwithstanding the multiple opportunities afforded to the respondents, they have omitted to file any response to the same. By an order dated 12th May, 2026, it was directed that should the respondents fail to submit their response, the matter would be adjudicated upon the strength of the record available. Accordingly, in view of the respondents' default, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of their response.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner deserves bail due to his long incarceration and the respondents' failure to conclude evidence despite multiple opportunities. To demonstrate the respondents' lack of diligence, learned counsel produced the Trial Court's order dated February 25, 2026. In the said order, the Court expressed strong displeasure with the justification proffered for the absence of prosecution witness Rajinder Khajuria, who was reportedly on VIP duty as per the communication received from the SSP Traffic, Srinagar. Learned Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 439.

6. Per contra, the application is resisted by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the respondents. He argued that the petitioner's custody for a period exceeding eleven years cannot ipso facto operate as a passport to bail, especially when he stands charged for a heinous offence punishable under Section 302 RPC. It is further submitted that in view of the severe quantum of punishment, the mere length of incarceration endured by the petitioner provides no justification for his enlargement on bail.

7. Heard and perused the record of Trial court.

8. The record shows that the petitioner was arrested on June 6, 2014. The challan was presented before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor, Jammu, on July 13, 2014, and committed to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, on the same day. On August 9, 2014, the case was assigned to the Trial Court. Charges under Sections 302 and 201 RPC were framed against the petitioner on November 10, 2014. Out of 35 prosecution witnesses cited, 24 have been examined to date, six have been dropped, and two are deceased, leaving three witnesses to be examined.

9. In fact, the prosecution has consumed a period exceeding eleven years to record the depositions of only twenty-four witnesses. Computed at an average of barely two witnesses per annum, this pace is far too languid to be ignored when viewed in