Reasoned Bail Orders By HC Must Avoid Comments On Prosecution Evidence Or Merits Of Case: J&K&L High Court

Reiterating that bail adjudication during an ongoing trial is an exercise in limited overview jurisdiction, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that while High Courts must provide reasons for granting or refusing bail, they must scrupulously avoid entering into the merits or sufficiency of the evidence, even when considering factors such as prolonged incarceration and the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case.

“… any observation drawn on that basis may have an effect, immediate or later, of instilling in the mind of the trial court that the evidence led in the case is meant to be seen from the perspective with which the Higher Court”, Justice Rahul Bharti remarked.

This principle guided the Court while deciding the bail plea of one Khalid Hussain @ Munna, who remained in custody for more than seven years in connection with a murder case registered in 2018.

The case arose out of FIR after the death of Mohd. Jabbar @ Ganju, alleged to have been murdered by Khalid Hussain @ Munna and his co-accused Azam Hussain, both residents of Kangar. The petitioner was arrested in 2018 and the co-accused Azam Hussain, arrested earlier, died during the pendency of the trial, leaving Khalid Hussain as the sole undertrial.

The trial began before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, but even after years, the prosecution evidence remained incomplete. After additional witnesses were examined and with long incarceration becoming a critical factor, the petitioner again approached the High Court seeking bail.

Court Observations:

Justice Bharti began by underscoring the narrow scope of the High Court's jurisdiction during bail in pending trials. He explained,

“In bail matters during a pending trial, the High Court exercises a limited overview jurisdiction; it must give reasons but must scrupulously avoid any discussion or observation on the merits or sufficiency of evidence.”

The Court emphasised that even when looking at factors such as long incarceration or the purely circumstantial nature of the case, it cannot comment on evidentiary worth.

“This Court is not to reflect upon merits and demerits of the prosecution case, be it by deliberation or default, as any such reflection may prejudice the trial court.”, the court underscored.

Stressing that bail orders must contain reasons but those reasons must not even indirectly signal a view on guilt or innocence the bench emphasised,

“Any observation can have a telling effect on the final judgment to be made by the trial court, and therefore reasons must be confined strictly to the bail parameters.”

Turning to the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner had spent seven years in custody, the co-accused had died, and the prosecution case was wholly circumstantial. Justice Bharti clarified that assessing whether the chain of circumstances meets the legal threshold for conviction is exclusively for the trial court, not for the High Court considering bail.

Importantly, the key prosecution witnesses, those who shaped the narrative stood examined, meaning the risk of influencing them no longer exists. Stating that the remaining witnesses are largely official witnesses, the court recorded,

“The prosecution witnesses who are immediate in terms of creating and casting the narrative… have been examined. The remaining witnesses are mostly official witnesses whose testimony flows from documents.”

Pointing out that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, hence,reducing concerns of misuse of liberty the Court concluded that the enlargement of the petitioner on bail would have no prejudicial effect on the criminal trial.”

Case Title: Khalid Hussain Vs UT Of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment