“Long Incarceration Tilts Balance In Favour Of Liberty”: J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Murder Case After 9 Years Custody

The Court was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of an undertrial accused facing trial for offences under the Ranbir Penal Code and the Arms Act.

A Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem, while granting bail to the accused, observed that “it has been over 09 years that the Petitioner is behind bars and the Prosecution has yet to examine 12 witnesses, which may take some time and, therefore, such long incarceration, when pitted against the 'Right to Liberty' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, clearly tilts the balance in favour of grant of liberty”.

The prosecution's case alleged that the accused, along with a co-accused, had carried out a fatal shooting near a religious place, leading to the death of the victim. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 RPC and relevant provisions of the Arms Act.

The accused was arrested shortly after the incident and has remained in custody since then. The prosecution cited as many as 30 witnesses in support of its case. A previous bail application had been rejected by the trial court, primarily on the ground that the trial was still ongoing and not all witnesses had been examined.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over nine years, while a substantial number of prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined. It was observed that continuation of custody for an indefinite period, pending trial, would result in a violation of the right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court reiterated: “If the State… has no wherewithal to provide… a speedy trial… then the State… should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.”

While refraining from a detailed evaluation of evidence, the Court undertook a limited scrutiny of the testimonies of eyewitnesses. It found that there were discrepancies regarding the manner of occurrence and the presence of the accused at the scene.

The Court reiterated that while considering bail, the requirement is only to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case, and not to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence. It emphasised that the seriousness of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are evident.

Taking a cumulative view, the Court held that “the testimonies of eyewitnesses have been taken note of and, on a cursory look, there appear to be contradictions insofar as the manner of occurrence as well as presence of the accused is concerned”.

Therefore, considering the significant delay in the trial, the Petitioner's long period of incarceration and prima facie contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses as to the manner of assault, as well as the presence of the Petitioner at the time of incidence, the Court concluded that “cumulatively all these factors mandate the grant of bail so as to prevent the violation of right of speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution”.

The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the petitioner subject to conditions, including furnishing of surety, regular appearance before the trial court, and non-interference with prosecution evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Case Title: Bhopinder Singh v. State of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

Advocate A. P. Singh represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh represented the respondents.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment