Taking serious exception to glaring lapses in the investigation of a rape case, the Fast Track Court Jammu has granted bail to an accused and issued show-cause notices to a Station House Officer (SHO) and two Investigating Officers (IOs), seeking explanations as to why departmental action should not be recommended against them.
JKUT (Jammu), November-09-2026-( JNF):- Taking serious exception to glaring lapses in the investigation of a rape case, the Fast Track Court Jammu has granted bail to an accused and issued show-cause notices to a Station House Officer (SHO) and two Investigating Officers (IOs), seeking explanations as to why departmental action should not be recommended against them.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh passed the order while granting bail to Naseeb Ali, son of Barkat Ali, resident of Jandyal, Tehsil Bhalwal, Jammu, in FIR No. 85/2026 registered at Police Station Amb Gharota.
The Court strongly criticised the manner in which the investigation was conducted, observing that criminal investigation cannot become a mechanical exercise of collecting statements supporting one version without independently verifying the factual foundation of allegations.
“Person’s liberty cannot be trampled based on conclusion drawn out of thin air,” the Court observed.
According to the case record, the proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by the accused’s mother on August 13, 2026, alleging that her son had been abducted, wrongfully confined and assaulted by his brother, sister-in-law and other family members.
However, during the investigation, the woman initially named among the accused subsequently made allegations of sexual assault against Naseeb Ali in a statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
The investigating agency thereafter dropped the original allegations against the persons named in the complaint and proceeded against Naseeb Ali for offences including rape, outraging modesty, house trespass, criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint.
Examining the investigation record, the Court observed that the sequence of events raised legitimate questions requiring explanation.
It noted that prosecution witnesses primarily referred to the incident of August 13, 2026, while their statements did not corroborate the alleged incident of September 1 or provide corresponding accounts of the earlier rape allegation.
The Court further observed that the investigating officers had neither collected independent evidence concerning the subsequent allegations nor properly examined the persons allegedly involved in rescuing the complainant.
Expressing concern over the investigative deficiencies, the Court emphasised that investigating agencies were duty-bound to ensure fairness, impartiality and credibility in criminal investigations.
The Court directed HC Mohd Shawal and PSI Waheed Moqeem, the two investigating officers, to explain why departmental action should not be recommended against them.
Similarly, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO Police Station Gharota, was directed to explain why action should not be recommended against him for lack of supervisory oversight over the investigation.
The Court ordered separate show-cause proceedings against all three police officers.
Meanwhile, taking into consideration that the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet presented and the accused had remained in judicial custody since September 19, 2026, the Court granted bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 30,000 each.
The accused was directed not to threaten or contact prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence and to regularly attend trial proceedings.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the main criminal case.
Advocate Basit Manzoor Keng appeared for the accused, while APP Ajay Dogra represented the prosecution. (JNF)
JNF/November/09/2026/1
HC Reopens 2005 Murder Bid Case, Slams Trial Court, Prosecution for Failure of Justice
JKUT (Jammu), November-09-2026-( JNF):- In a significant judicial intervention, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ordered reopening of a nearly two-decade-old attempt-to-murder case, expressing serious concern over the failure of the prosecution, investigating agency and trial court to ensure examination of crucial witnesses during a trial that continued for seven-and-a-half years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yash Paul Bourney, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the erstwhile J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, directed that the case be remanded for trial in accordance with law, preferably to be concluded within six months of receipt of the order.
The matter arose from an alleged murderous assault on September 17, 2005, in the Paloura area of Jammu. According to the prosecution, Sohan Singh alias Sonu was allegedly attacked with sharp-edged weapons and sticks in connection with a land-related dispute.
Following the incident, FIR No. 94/2005 was registered at Police Station Janipur under Sections 307, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.
The accused were subsequently acquitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on July 26, 2016.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, Dalbeer Singh, one of the injured persons, approached the High Court seeking special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) CrPC.
However, the Division Bench held that the petitioner had no statutory right to maintain such an appeal under the applicable provisions of the erstwhile State Code, particularly because the proceedings originated from a police chargesheet rather than a private complaint.
Despite rejecting the plea for leave to appeal, the High Court examined the trial record and found serious deficiencies in the manner in which the criminal proceedings had been conducted.
The Bench observed that despite numerous opportunities spread over seven-and-a-half years, the prosecution examined only three witnesses, including one injured witness whose examination remained incomplete.
Expressing concern over the proceedings, the Court observed that the prosecution and investigating agency had failed to discharge their responsibilities, while the trial court remained a “mute spectator” throughout.
The Bench noted that the investigating agency had virtually abandoned its responsibility after filing the chargesheet, while the prosecution continued seeking opportunities without ensuring the presence of material witnesses.
Holding that the deficiencies had resulted in a serious failure of the process of law, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to reopen the case and direct its expeditious trial.
The Division Bench emphasised that the operation of law could not be permitted to be subverted by anyone.
Advocate A.K. Shan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate J.P. Gandhi, along with Advocates Ashok Singh, Nipun Gandhi and Sonam Sharma, represented the respondents. (JNF)
