Back
Fatal Call: J&K High Court Rejects Bail, Upholds Phone in Poisoning Murder
In a ruling that underscores the weight of a victim's final words captured on a mobile phone, the has denied bail to two men accused of murder by poisoning. Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the application of Basharat Ahmad Abbasi alias Bashir and another, facing trial under , emphasizing a forensically verified as substantial evidence. The decision, pronounced on , directs the trial court to expedite proceedings.
A Love Affair Ends in Alleged Betrayal
The case traces back to , when police at Bijhama station in Uri received reports of an unconscious man near Reshiwari bridge. Identified as Mohammad Syed Abasi, the victim was declared dead on arrival at Uri hospital. revealed poisoning as the cause, prompting FIR No. 02/2020.
Investigation uncovered a five-year romance between Abasi and Zahida Bano, opposed by her family. Prosecutors allege Zahida's siblings—accused Shahida Begum and Hilal Ahmad Malik—conspired with the petitioners. They lured Abasi to their home with marriage promises, mixed rodent killer poison (Zinc Phosphide) into Lipton tea, and sent him off. He collapsed near the bridge.
Key evidence emerged from a call Abasi made to witness Altaf Hussain (PW-20), instructing him to record it. In the conversation, verified by as unedited with supporting call data records, Abasi named the petitioners and others, accusing them of tricking and poisoning him. Recovery from the accused's kitchen followed disclosure statements.
Charges were framed on , after pandemic delays. Female co-accused secured bail in 2023, but petitioners' applications failed at trial court levels, leading to this High Court plea filed .
Petitioners' Plea: Innocence, Mismatch, and Years in Chains
Counsel argued the duo's over five-year detention violated 's right to life and liberty. Claiming a suicide, not homicide, they highlighted forensic discrepancies: kitchen recovery was Zinc Phosphide, but viscera showed Organo Phosphorus Insecticide. Of 33 witnesses, 22 examined implicated no specific roles or conspiracy. "Star" witnesses like Altaf Hussain and Mohammad Rafiq (PW-21) showed contradictions, demolishing the case .
Long incarceration and trial delays—chalked up to COVID disruptions—were pressed, with all material witnesses done.
Prosecution's Stand: No Escape from the Recorded Truth
Opposing, the asserted a heinous murder plot with ample record linking petitioners. Risks of flight and witness tampering loomed large. They defended the 's strength, backed by forensics and witness support, insisting bail barred under norms for life-sentence offences.
Weighing Evidence Without Prejudging Trial
Justice Dhar navigated bail principles from Supreme Court precedents like Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004), stressing no detailed evidence probe at this stage—only satisfaction. Factors included accusation gravity, evidence nature, tampering risks, and character.
Rejecting deep dives, the court found PW-20 and PW-21
corroborating the call where Abasi blamed petitioners. Admissible as a
relating to death circumstances (echoing
, as noted in reports), minor contradictions warranted no scrutiny now. Forensic poison variance?
"May not be of much relevance"
at bail stage, given postmortem confirming poisoning.
On delays, pandemic halts—from filing to charges in 2021—explained sluggishness, but post-COVID progress examined 22 of 33 witnesses briskly. No speedy trial breach.
Citing State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005), the bench avoided "detailed examination" to prevent prejudice.
Key Observations
“The statement made by the deceased immediately before his death which relates to the circumstances pertaining to his death becomes admissible in evidence and, therefore, the contention... that there is no material on record... that would connect the petitioners with the alleged crime, is misconceived.”
“There may be minor contradictions here and there in the statements of PWs Altaf Hussain and Mohammad Rafiq but at the stage of considering the bail application, it is not open to this Court to critically analyze their statements.”
“The issue as to whether the poison detected in the viscera of the deceased was the same kind of poison which was recovered... may not be of much relevance at this stage for the purposes of considering the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail.”
No Bail, But Trial Acceleration Ordered
“I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.” Yet, mercy in directive: trial court must “expedite the trial... so that the is finally disposed of at the earliest.”
This reinforces digital dying declarations' evidentiary power, cautions against bail-stage nitpicking, and prioritizes swift justice in prolonged cases. For accused in circumstantial murder probes, it signals recordings can be game-changers, while courts balance liberty with public safety.
