HC Denies Bail to Main Accused in Poonch Poisoning Murder Case
JKUT (Jammu), November-13-2026-( JNF):- The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the bail application of the alleged main accused in a 2020 poisoning murder case of Poonch district, observing that circumstantial evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because of the absence of eyewitnesses and that granting bail at this stage could result in a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani dismissed the bail plea of Mohd Tariq, a resident of Loran, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch, who is facing trial in FIR No. 30/2020 registered at Police Station Loran under Sections 302, 109, 295 and 201 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the case pertains to the alleged murder of 22-year-old Sheraz Yousif, whose body was found in a mosque at Danna Loran on October 22, 2020.
The prosecution alleged that the accused owed Rs 50,000 to the deceased, who had been demanding repayment. Allegedly angered by the demand, Tariq, in connivance with other accused persons, called Sheraz to Danna Loran on the pretext of returning the money.
The deceased was allegedly taken to the house of co-accused Kousar Parveen, where poison was forcibly administered to him. He was subsequently confined to a bathroom, and after his death, his body was allegedly shifted to a nearby mosque to conceal evidence.
The forensic examination detected an organophosphorus insecticide, while the Medical Board attributed the death to cardiorespiratory arrest resulting from organophosphorus poisoning.
During arguments, Advocate Mumtaz Choudhary, appearing for the accused, submitted that his client had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that the deceased was allegedly a drug addict and might have died due to an overdose.
The defence further submitted that the accused had remained incarcerated for more than five years and that three co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court on July 10, 2024. Accordingly, bail was sought on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity.
However, Government Advocate Eishaan Dadhichi, representing the Union Territory, strongly opposed the application, contending that the accused was allegedly the principal offender and that the medical and forensic evidence, coupled with the circumstances collected during the investigation, supported his involvement in the crime.
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Wani observed that heinous and pre-planned offences are frequently committed in secrecy and that investigating agencies must necessarily rely upon circumstantial evidence to identify the perpetrators.
The Court emphasised that circumstantial evidence cannot be discarded merely because direct eyewitness testimony is unavailable. However, such evidence must ultimately form a complete chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused.
The High Court further observed that courts are not required to conduct a mini-trial while considering bail applications, as the appreciation of evidence and determination of guilt or innocence fall within the domain of the trial.
Explaining the expression “reasonable grounds”, the Court observed that it means something more than mere suspicion or conjecture but less than proof, and must be assessed in the context of the evidence available in each case.
The Court further held that the grant of bail in offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception rather than the rule, and judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, balancing individual liberty against the larger interests of society.
Rejecting the plea of parity, the High Court observed that the petitioner stood charged as the alleged principal offender in the murder case, unlike the co-accused who had already secured bail.
Significantly, the Court noted that prosecution evidence had already been closed and the trial was listed for final arguments. It observed that granting bail to the accused at this advanced stage was likely to cause a miscarriage of justice.
While refusing bail, the High Court requested the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and pronounce its final judgment.
The Court also directed the Trial Court to examine the issue concerning the framing of charges, particularly the abetment charge against the alleged main accused, before concluding the trial.
Justice Wani clarified that the observations made in the bail order were confined to the limited purpose of deciding the application and would not prejudice the merits of the criminal trial. (JNF)
JNF/November/13/2026/1
Court Rejects Bail of Two in Minor Marriage, POCSO Case
JKUT (Jammu), November-13-2026-( JNF):- The Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, has rejected the bail applications of two accused, including the mother of an accused in an alleged child marriage and sexual assault case, observing that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and cannot be viewed with leniency.
Special Judge Renu Dogra Gupta rejected the bail applications of Santosh Kumari, wife of Tara Chand, resident of Ramnagar Konain, Udhampur, and Shamsher Lal, son of Dharam Chand, resident of Gadhi Purkhoo, Jammu, in connection with FIR No. 79/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal under Sections 49, 137(2) and 64(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, Santosh Kumari, mother of accused Rajesh Kumar, allegedly accompanied her son in keeping a minor girl away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and made arrangements for her alleged marriage with Rajesh Kumar.
It was further alleged that co-accused Shamsher Lal received money from the accused for solemnising the marriage between the minor girl and Rajesh Kumar.
During arguments, Advocate Gagan Oswal and Associates, appearing for Santosh Kumari, and Advocate Shahrukh Rashid, representing Shamsher Lal, submitted that their clients had been falsely implicated and were innocent of the allegations.
The defence counsels further contended that continued detention of the accused would amount to pre-trial punishment and violate their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Gupta, appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, strongly opposed both applications, submitting that the allegations involved serious, heinous and non-bailable offences carrying severe punishment.
The prosecution further submitted that the trial was yet to commence and that releasing the accused at this stage could create apprehensions of influencing prosecution witnesses, obstructing the judicial process or evading trial.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the charge-sheet and the statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the Court observed that the material available on record did not support the claim of innocence raised by the applicants at the bail stage.
The Court noted that the victim, in her statement recorded before the competent authority, had supported the prosecution version.
“Bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” the Court observed, while emphasising that the principle cannot be interpreted exclusively in favour of an accused without considering the interests of victims and society.
The Court further observed that personal liberty is undoubtedly important, but a balance must be maintained between the individual liberty of an accused and the interests of justice and society.
It stressed that the nature and gravity of the allegations, the available evidence, the possibility of influencing witnesses and the broader public interest must be considered while deciding bail applications involving serious offences.
Referring to the principles governing judicial discretion, the Court observed that bail in non-bailable offences cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the overall circumstances.
The Court further emphasised that sexual offences against minors require utmost sensitivity and that the criminal justice system must protect the dignity and constitutional rights of victims.
Significantly, the Court noted that charges were yet to be framed in the case and that the matter was still at a preliminary stage.
Considering the gravity of the allegations, the statement of the victim and the circumstances of the case, the Court held that no grounds had been made out for granting bail to either applicant.
Accordingly, both bail applications were rejected as being devoid of merit.
The Court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the disposal of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the main criminal case. (JNF)
