TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent : Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, Adv., Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv., Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Adv., Dr. Anthony Raju, Adv., Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Adv. ORDER DIPANKAR DATTA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In the present batch of appeals, the appellants (total six in number), impugn rejection of their bail applications by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu [High Court] vide the common impugned order dated 4th November, 2025. 3. For brevity, the details of the respective bail applications filed before the High Court by each appellant are reproduced in a tabular form, hereunder: Name of appellant Accused Number Bail application before HC Lead Appeal-SLP (Crl.)19036 of 2025 Sheikh Mehmoood Accused No.2 292 of 2024 Connected appeal-SLP (Crl.)20104 of 2025 Ravinder Kumar Gupta Accused No.4 4 of 2025 Connected Appeal-SLP (Crl.) 20884 of 2025 Parshotam Singh Accused No.1 1 of 2025 Suraj Singh Accused No.7 1 of 2025 Vikas Singh Accused No.10 1 of 2025 Sandeep Charak Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sses as early as possible, preferably by 25th May, 2026. On 27th May, 2026, upon hearing learned senior counsel/counsel appearing for the respective parties, we closed the hearing. 11. Several notes have been tendered across the bar by learned counsel for the parties, which we propose to take into consideration. 12. We were informed across the bar that out of the alleged 6 (six) eyewitnesses, recording of evidence of five of them is complete, whereas the sixth eyewitness has been dropped from the list of proposed witnesses. 13. For completeness, the case of each accused is discussed hereinafter. SHEIKH MEHMOOD 14. After referring to various CDR/phone number of Sheikh Mehmood, it is alleged in the chargesheet that he along with other accused, hatched a conspiracy to plan the offence. After the incident, the call frequency amongst the accused persons reduced substantially. Balbir Singh (PW2) in his statement given under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] stated that on 24th and 25th April, 2024, he along with the deceased, were going towards their home, Sheikh Mehmood along with 3 other individuals intercepted them in a vehicle (Innova) and thre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upta, has undergone material changes during the proceedings. It was pointed out that PW2 initially stated in a media interview that Gola Shah had handed an iron rod to Purushottam Singh. Thereafter, he altered his version and alleged that it was Gola Shah's son who had handed over the rod. Subsequently, he gave yet another version in his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. During cross-examination, PW2 allegedly introduced a further variation by stating that Gola Shah's son had handed the rod to Gola Shah. It was argued that these shifting versions were prompted by the CCTV footage, which contradicted his earlier allegations and compelled him to relocate the alleged role of Gola Shah and his son to areas beyond the coverage of the CCTV cameras. It was further submitted that PW2's testimony is inconsistent with the statement of PW1, who stated that Purushottam Singh himself picked up the iron rod from scrap material lying at the spot. Significantly, during crossexamination, PW2 admitted that neither Gola Shah nor his son entered the plot during the occurrence and that neither was visible in any of the videos of the incident allegedly in his possession. In these circumstances,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irteen days after the complaint. It was argued that by disregarding the CCTV footage and relying solely upon the statements of PW1 and PW2, the High Court erroneously concluded that Purshottam Singh inflicted the first blow. 26. Referring specifically to the cross-examination of PW1, it was submitted that PW1 refused to identify the deceased in the CCTV footage despite allegedly standing next to him at the relevant time. It was further contended that the High Court failed to discuss or analyze the role attributed to the remaining three accused. 27. In the alternative, it was submitted that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all the allegations against the accused are accepted as true, the facts would not disclose the requisite intention to commit murder so as to attract Section 302, IPC. According to the appellants, the incident arose out of a sudden and spontaneous quarrel and, therefore, the offence of murder was not made out. RESPONDENTS' VERSIONS 28. Per contra, Mr. Parth Awasthi and Mr. Karman Singh Johal, learned counsel for the respondent-State and the respondent-complainant, respectively, opposed the prayers for bail tooth and nail. According to them,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the prayers for bail of the appealing accused should follow as a matter of course. 34. Be that as it may, two of the appellants - Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta - are septuagenarians; one of them has been in poor health requiring regular medical care while the evidence qua the other, to a certain extent, is prevaricating and inconsistent. Bearing in mind the advanced age of such appellants, their claims call for a different treatment. 35. We, thus, direct that Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta may be released on bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and also subject to such terms and conditions that are imposed by it to facilitate unhindered trial. 36. Needless to observe, Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court. 37. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta. 38. It is also ordered that Sheikh Mehmood ....