"Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents Amounts To Abuse Of Process": J&K&L High Court Denies Bail To Former Sarpanch In Assault Case
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail application of a former Sarpanch accused in a serious assault case, holding that the applicant had suppressed his criminal antecedents and failed to make a full and candid disclosure of material facts. The Court observed that the gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the applicant's criminal history weighed against the grant of bail.
A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the application, observed,
"It has been consistently emphasized by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice."
The Court was hearing a regular bail application filed by Kewal Krishan, a former Sarpanch, in FIR registered for offences under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(2), 333, 323, 341, 147, 148, and 149 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Declining the bail the Court further observed,
"The nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment prescribed, the existence of a prima facie case, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice are among the relevant considerations which must guide the exercise of judicial discretion."
The FIR was registered on allegations that the accused persons, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, intercepted the victims while they were returning from their shop and launched a brutal attack upon them using hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons (Toka) and other weapons, leaving them lying on the road. The victims sustained serious injuries, with two injured persons being hospitalized in Ludhiana.
The applicant had earlier approached the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, seeking regular bail, which was dismissed on 11.07.2026 primarily on the ground that the injured persons were still undergoing treatment. According to the applicant, both injured persons had since been discharged, constituting a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
The applicant also claimed that he was not present at the place of occurrence and relied upon CCTV footage from his petrol pump to support his alibi. He submitted that no specific overt act was attributed to him and no recovery had been effected from him.
Court's Observation
The Court examined the principles governing grant of bail and noted that the applicant was seeking a successive bail application, requiring demonstration of a material change in circumstances.
The Court observed,
"The applicant must demonstrate a material change in the circumstances which would justify taking a view different from the one taken by the learned Court below. It is well settled that though a successive bail application is maintainable, the Court considering such an application is required to bear in mind the reasons which weighed with the Court while rejecting the earlier application."
The Court found that the alleged change in circumstances did not justify a different view, noting,
"The latest status report placed on record indicates that the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi is yet to be recorded and that the medical reports concerning his injuries are still awaited. Thus, the material circumstances which formed part of the basis for declining bail earlier cannot be said to have completely lost their relevance."
Addressing the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the applicant had disclosed only two FIRs while the status report referred to a third FIR bearing No. 35/2024. The Court observed,
"The alleged non-disclosure of FIR No. 35/2024 in the bail application also assumes significance. The applicant has, in paragraph No. 15 of the bail application, disclosed two earlier FIRs, while the status report placed before the Court refers to FIR No. 35/2024 as well."
The Court relied upon Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors, 2026 INSC 144, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that an applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts.
The Court also noted the background of the case, observing that about two months prior to the present occurrence, one of the injured persons had allegedly been attacked by 15-16 persons, in respect of which a FIR was registered. The Court observed,
"The background preceding the present occurrence is also a circumstance which cannot be altogether ignored at this stage."
On the stage of investigation, the Court noted,
"Five of the accused persons are stated to be absconding; the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi is yet to be recorded; the medical reports concerning the injuries sustained by him are awaited; and the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence have not yet been recovered."
The Court relied upon Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422, wherein the Supreme Court observed that criminal antecedents of an accused are relevant while considering bail. The Court emphasised that antecedents of the applicant are required to be considered alongside the nature of the allegations in the present FIR and the stage of investigation."
On the applicant's reliance upon CCTV footage, the Court observed that the said footage is relied upon to support the applicant's assertion regarding his presence at the petrol pump at the relevant time. However, its evidentiary value, authenticity, continuity and ultimate effect upon the prosecution case would require appreciation in the light of the entire evidence and this Court, while exercising jurisdiction at the stage of bail, cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of such material, the court underscored.
In light of the above observations the Court dismissed the bail application.
Case Title: Kewal Krishan v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
Appearances
Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate; Mr. Amullaya Gupta, Advocate
Respondent No. 1: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA
Respondent No. 2: Mr. Aseem K Sawhney, Sr. Advocate; M/s Nishant Verma, Kashif Malik, Sarfraz Ahmed & Anil Kumar, Advocates