Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sheikh Mehmood vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT JAMMU
Reserved on 25.09.2025
Pronounced on 04.11.2025
Uploaded on: 04.11.2025
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Crl R No. 61/2024
CrlM No. 1908/2024
c/w
Crl R No. 65/2024
Bail App. No. 292/2024
CrlM No. 1907/2024
CrlM No. 1960/2024
CrlM No. 2046/2024
CrlM No. 99/2025
Bail App. No. 319/2024
Crl R No. 1/2025
CrlM No. 2/2025
Bail App. No. 1/2025
Bail App. No. 4/2025
Crl R No. 5/2025
CrlM No. 34/2025
Crl R. No. 18/2025
CRM(M) No. 418/2025
CrlM No. 831/2025
Crl R No. 2/2025
CrlM No. 3/2025
Sheikh Mehmood .....Petitioners
Balbir Singh
Sheikh Mehmood
Sachin Patyal
Parshotam Singh & ors
Ravinder Kumar Gupta
Ravinder Kumar Gupta
Sachin Singh
UT of J&K
Jaipreet Singh
Parshotam Singh & ors Through:
In Crl R No. 61/2024 & Bail App. No. 292/2024
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 1 of 52
In Crl R No. 1/2025 & Bail App. No. 4/2025
Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
In Crl R No. 2/2025 & Bail App. No. 1/2025
Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
In Crl R. No. 65/2024
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate
In CRM(M) No. 418/2025
Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocate
In Crl R. No. 18/2025
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor
In Crl R. No. 5/2025 & in Bail App. No. 319/2024
Mr. Rahul Singh Sambyal, Advocate &
Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K & Anr
Sharat Puri and others
.....Respondents
In Crl R No. 61/2024 & Bail App. No. 292/2024
Through:
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
&2
In Bail App. No. 292/2024
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate for R-3
In Crl R No. 5/2025 & in Bail App. No. 319/2024
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
& 2 in Crl R. No. 5/2025 and for R-1 in Bail App.
No. 319/2024
In Crl R No. 1/2025 & Bail App. No. 4/2025
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate for R-2
In Crl R No. 2/2025 & Bail App. No. 1/2025
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate for R-2
In Crl R. No. 65/2024
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate &
Ms. Deeksha Handoo, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for R-4
In CRM(M) No. 418/2025
Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Special Public Prosecutor for R-1
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 2 of 52
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate for R-2
In Crl R. No. 18/2025
Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate &
Ms. Deeksha Handoo, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for R-3
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. By this common judgment, the afore-titled six criminal revision petitions, one petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS and four bail applications are proposed to be disposed of together.
2. All the aforesaid cases arise out of a common order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in a case arising out of FIR No. 39/2024 of Police Station Gangyal for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 447, 147, 120-B, 448, 427, 461, 201, 506, 34 and 109 of the IPC. Vide the said order, which is impugned in the revision petitions and the quashing petition, the petitioners Parshotam Singh, Sheikh Mehmood, Sachin Patyal, Ravinder Kumar Gupta, Davinder Pal Singh, Suraj Singh, Varun Kumar, Vikas Singh, and Sandeep Charak have been charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 447, 427, 302, 307, 506, 147 and 201 of the IPC, whereas accused Sharat Singh, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh alias Raghu have been discharged. Besides this, involvement of petitioner Jaipreet Singh alias Honey, Poonam Kumari and Ghambir Singh in aforesaid offences has also been determined.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 3 of 52
3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 01/2025 and Bail Application No. 04/2025 have been filed by the accused Ravinder Kumar Gupta. Criminal Revision Petition No. 61/2024 and Bail Application No. 292/2024 have been filed by the accused Sheikh Mehmood. Criminal Revision Petition No. 02/2025 and Bail Application No. 01/2025 have been filed by the accused Parshotam Singh, Varun Kumar, Suraj Singh, Vikas Singh, Sandeep Charak, and Davinder Pal Singh. Criminal Revision Petition No. 05/2025 along with Bail Application No. 319/2024 has been filed by the accused Sachin Singh. Accused Jaipreet Singh alias Honey has filed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS challenging the same order, i.e., order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned trial court.
4. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has also challenged the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned trial court to the extent of discharge of accused Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 18/2025. Similarly, the father of the victim, Balbir Singh, has challenged discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh, with a further prayer to proceed against Sh. Puneet Sharma, Sub- Inspector of Police, by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2024. (A) Background Facts:
5. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid petitions are that on 30.04.2024, a written report was lodged by PW Jagir Singh at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, implicating Parshotam Singh, Ravinder Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 4 of 52 Kumar Gupta alias Golla Shah, his son Rakshat (Rajat Jandial), and Sheikh Mehmood as the accused persons. In the report, it was stated that the brother of the complainant, namely Balbir Singh, is in possession of land measuring 33 marlas under Khewat No. 13, Khata No. 97, Khasra No. 6 min, situated at Chowadi (Greater Kailash), and that certain civil suits regarding the said land are pending before the Court. It was further reported that at about 4:00 p.m., brother of the complainant received information that, in the presence of police personnel, the accused persons were trying to dispossess his brother from the said property. It was also stated that the complainant, along with his brother, sister-in-law, and nephew, namely Avtar Singh, reached the spot to protect their possession. The report goes on to state that when they reached the spot, PSI Sh. Puneet Sharma, Incharge Police Post Greater Kailash, was present on the spot but he was hand in glove with the land grabbers and because of this, the accused persons, along with the son of Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Golla Shah and their hired goons, launched an attack on the complainant, his brother Balbir Singh, and his brother's son Avtar Singh, with an intention to kill them, that too in the presence of PSI Puneet Sharma. It was alleged that, as a result of this attack, Avtar Singh sustained grievous injuries.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, FIR No. 39/2024 was registered for offences under Sections 307, 323, 447, and 147 of the IPC, and the investigation was initially entrusted to PSI Aaqib Latief. It appears that subsequently, the investigation was handed over to a Special Investigation Team (SIT, for short) headed by Shri Kartik Shrotriya, Assistant Superintendent of Police.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 5 of 52
7. During the course of investigation, the police proceeded to GMC Hospital for recording statements of the victims. Upon reaching the hospital, it was found that the injured person, namely Avtar Singh, had succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was seized, and Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. During the further course of investigation, the accused persons, namely Parshotam Singh alias Nikka, Suraj Singh, Sandeep Charak, Vikas Singh, Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Golla Shah, Rajat Jandyal, Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi, Sachin Patyal alias Sanju, Raghunandan Singh, Varun Kumar, Davinder Pal Singh, and Sharat Puri, were arrested. The Investigating Agency got the medical examination of the injured conducted at GMC Hospital, Jammu, obtained CCTV footage from the vicinity of the place of occurrence, and got the disputed plot of land demarcated through the revenue agency, where-after the premises of the accused persons Ravinder Gupta, Sheikh Mehmood and Romi Charak were subjected to search. The premises, namely R.K. Resort, owned by accused Ravinder Gupta, Parshotam Singh, and Raghunandan Singh, along with the office of Parshotam Singh at Bari Brahmana, were also subjected to search, whereupon documentary and digital evidence was seized. The vehicles used in the commission of the crime by accused Parshotam Singh, Vikas Singh, Sandeep Charak, Sachin Patyal, Raghunandan Singh, Davinder Pal Singh, Ravinder Gupta, and Rajat Jandyal were also seized. The Investigating Agency also recorded the statements of the complainant, Jagir Singh, Balbir Singh (father of the deceased) and Kulwinder Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, whereas the statements of other eyewitnesses, namely Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 6 of 52 Balkar Singh, Tejinder Singh, Surinder Singh, and Kamal Kour, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Besides this, the statements of witnesses, namely Manjit Singh, Rattan Dev Singh, and Taranjeet Singh Gujral alias Toni, were also recorded. The Call Detail Records (CDRs) of all the accused persons and related suspects were obtained and analyzed.
8. After conducting investigation of the case, it was found by the Investigating Agency that the land measuring 33 marlas under Khewat No. 13, Khata No. 97, and Khasra No. 6 min, situated at village Chowadi, had been purchased by PW Balbir Singh, the father of deceased Avtar Singh, in the year 2004 from accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah, who is a known land dealer. The land in question was previously recorded in the name of one Swaran Singh. In the chargesheet, it is further alleged that this parcel of land measuring 4 kanals was subsequently transferred to another person, namely, PW Rattan Dev Singh, through two transactions of 2 kanals each, in respect of which the mutations were attested in the year 2006. However, PW Rattan Dev Singh, due to financial compulsions, returned the land and received an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- from the vendor, which he had paid in the year 2006, though the land continued to remain in his name. It is further alleged that from the year 2019 onwards, the land standing in the name of PW Rattan Dev Singh, though not actually owned by him, was further transferred to Mrs. Reva Gupta, Rakesh Bhasin, Anita Devi, and Reva Sharma through attorney holder of PW Rattan Dev Singh, namely accused Parshotam Singh. It is alleged that accused Parshotam Singh had been made the power of attorney holder of Rattan Dev Singh at the behest of accused Ravinder Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 7 of 52 Gupta, who happens to be a business associate of accused Sheikh Mehmood. According to the chargesheet, a deal was struck so that common financial benefit could be derived from the transaction by all the persons involved, namely accused Sheikh Mehmood, accused Ravinder Gupta, accused Parshotam Singh, and accused Sharat Puri, who is stated to be a business associate of accused Parshotam Singh.
9. It is alleged that the deal was struck with the help and negotiation of accused Sheikh Mehmood, who was in actual control of the land. It is the contention of the Investigating Agency that the involvement of accused Sheikh Mehmood in land transactions, along with accused Ravinder Gupta as his business partner, is established from the recovery of sale deeds favouring accused Sheikh Mehmood from the house of accused Ravinder Gupta. It is further alleged that in the year 2019, due to the sale of the land parcel to Mrs. Reva Gupta, Rakesh Bhasin, Mrs. Anita Devi, and Mrs. Reva Sharma, and due to the unclear Akas Tatima attached to these sale deeds, a legal dispute arose between PW Balbir Singh and the said parties. This dispute was supported by accused Parshotam Singh, Ravinder Gupta, and Sheikh Mehmood, which led to the filing of a civil suit by PW Balbir Singh against the aforesaid individuals. It was found that during the pendency of this suit, PW Balbir Singh received threats through defacement of his property, with a threatening message written on it. In this regard, PW Balbir Singh lodged complaints with the police authorities against accused Ravinder Gupta and accused Sheikh Mehmood. However, the matter was later closed after PW Balbir Singh made a statement that accused Parshotam Singh and Ravinder Gupta had Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 8 of 52 accepted his possession on the spot and that further negotiations would be carried out by PW Taranjeet Singh Gujral alias Toni.
10. As per the chargesheet, the land dispute continued till the year 2024. On 03.03.2024, PW Balbir Singh obtained a stay order against the other parties to the dispute. Thereafter, on 30.04.2024, accused Parshotam Singh, along with his business associate accused Sachin Patyal alias Sanju, accused Sharat Puri, accused Sheikh Mehmood, and accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah, allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy with the intention to dispossess PW Balbir Singh from the land measuring 33 marlas by any and all means possible so that the disgruntled land purchasers to whom the land had been improperly transferred could be given possession, thereby avoiding financial loss by not returning the money which they had taken from the purchasers. It has been stated that the stay order obtained by PW Balbir Singh was got vacated by accused Parshotam Singh and accused Sachin Patyal on 22.04.2024, and on the basis of that order, they sought possession of the land in question.
11. It is alleged that the analysis of the CDRs of the phone numbers of accused Ravinder Gupta, Sheikh Mehmood, Sharat Puri, Sachin Patyal, and Parshotam Singh revealed that accused Sheikh Mehmood met accused Sachin Patyal and Parshotam at Bari Brahmana on 12.04.2024 in furtherance of the conspiracy, which is supported by their tower location convergence. It is also alleged that a meeting was convened in the run-up to the offence at Channi Himmat, Jammu, on 20.04.2024 by accused persons Sheikh Mehmood, Ravinder Gupta, and Sharat Puri, as supported by their tower location data showing presence at the same place and time. Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 9 of 52 It is further alleged that accused persons Parshotam, Sachin Patyal, and Sharat Puri met at their business office in Bari Brahmana on 30.04.2024, the day of the occurrence. It is alleged in the chargesheet that the accused were in constant touch with each other throughout the months of March and April 2024, exchanging a number of calls. The details of these calls have been mentioned in the chargesheet.
12. Regarding the occurrence which took place on 30.04.2024, it has been stated in the chargesheet that, on the basis of CCTV footage retrieved from a nearby location, the conspiracy to dispossess PW Balbir Singh at any cost through accused Sachin Patyal and Parshotam Singh started at 5:27 PM, as per the CCTV timing, which is about 30 minutes ahead of IST. It was also found that unidentified individuals, including accused Davinder Pal Singh, entered the disputed plot, broke open and removed the camera installed by the complainant party on their shed, and subsequently removed the Gypsy vehicle owned by the complainants from the plot and placed it outside. At 5:40 PM, CCTV timing, accused Davinder Pal Singh, at the behest of accused Sachin Patyal, broke open the lock and electricity meter of the shed constructed by the complainants on the land in question and disposed it off. At 15:54 PM, CCTV timing, accused Parshotam Singh entered the plot along with unidentified persons and stayed with accused Davinder Pal Singh and accused Sachin Patyal inside the plot. At 17:26 PM, CCTV timing, police officials, along with deceased Avtar Singh, PWs Balbir Singh, Kamaljeet Kaur, Jitto Devi, Jagir Singh and Balkar Singh, entered the plot. At 18:18 PM, CCTV timing, accused Poonam Kumari, along with her two sons Gambir Singh Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 10 of 52 and Suraj Singh, and other unidentified individuals, including women, entered the disputed plot. Accused Sandip Singh and Vikas Singh also entered the plot with them. At 18:41 PM, CCTV timing, accused Raghunandan Singh was spotted near the shed on the disputed plot along with Vikas Singh and Sandip Charak. At 19:01 PM, CCTV timing, accused Parshotam Singh and Sachin Patyal were seen standing together near accused Poonam Kumari, speaking to her and others. Thereafter, she stood up and started leading the attack on the complainant party. During the attack, which commenced at 19:03 PM, CCTV timing, accused Varun Kumar alias Punjabi, along with accused Parshotam Singh and Poonam Kumari, attacked the complainant party. The attack continued up to 19:08 PM, as per CCTV timing. The attack was launched by accused Parshotam Singh, Varun Kumar, and others upon the deceased Avtar Singh, PWs Balbir Singh, Jitto Devi, Balkar Singh, Surinder Singh and Tejinder Singh. At 19.24 pm, CCTV timing, the injured Avtar Singh, along with others, was evacuated in a private vehicle with the help of police personnel for medical treatment.
13. As per the eyewitness account gathered from the statements recorded under Sections 164 and 161 CrPC, accused Parshotam Singh, along with three ladies and three to four men tried to snatch the mobile phone of deceased Avtar Singh, as a result of which, the mobile phone fell down. When deceased Avtar Singh tried to pick up his mobile phone, accused Parshotam Singh attacked him on his head with a brick, and accused Varun Kumar also attacked deceased Avtar Singh on his head with a brick, due to which the victim fell down. Thereafter, accused Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 11 of 52 Parshotam Singh dragged PW Balbir Singh about 10 to 15 meters away from injured Avtar Singh, while accused Varun Kumar caught hold of his hair, and the other assailants attacked him with kicks from behind. Accused Varun Kumar also tried to hit him with a brick, but due to the intervention of PW Surinder Singh, PW Balbir Singh was saved, but in the process, PW Surinder Singh sustained an injury to his head. Accused Parshotam Singh's son, Suraj Singh, also attacked PW Surinder Singh with fists and blows. The aforesaid accused further attacked PW Balkar Singh with lathis on his legs, back, and head, with accused Varun Kumar attacking PW Balkar Singh on his head. Thereafter, accused Gambir Singh, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak again attacked PW Balbir Singh. Thereafter, the younger son of accused Parshotam Singh, namely accused Gambhir Singh, and his nephews, accused Vikas Singh and accused Sandeep Charak, again attacked PW Balbir Singh. The wife of accused Parshotam Singh is stated to have attacked PW Kamal Kour, and snatched her mobile phone and gold chain. Accused Jaipreet Singh is stated to have attacked PWs Balbir Singh, Balkar Singh, and Surinder Singh. Subsequently, accused Parshotam Singh attacked deceased Avtar Singh with an iron pipe, as a result of which he fell down. Accused Suraj Singh also assaulted deceased Avtar Singh with fists and blows. It is further alleged that after the attack, the road was blocked by the vehicles belonging to accused Raghunandan Singh, which was later on cleared by SHO, Police Station Gangyal.
14. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Agency found that offences under Sections 302, 323, 447, 147 read with Section 120-B Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 12 of 52 and Section 506 IPC stand proved against accused Sharat Puri, Sheikh Mehmood, Ravinder Gupta, Parshotam Singh, and Sachin Patyal. It was further concluded that offences under Sections 302 read with 109, 447, 448, 147, 427, 461, 201, 506, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Ravinder Pal Singh. The investigation also revealed that offences under Sections 302, 323, 447, 147, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Suraj Singh, whereas offences under Section 302, 307, 323, 447, 147, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Varun Kumar. It was also concluded that offences under Sections 302, 323, 447, 147 read with Section 109 IPC stand proved against accused Rajat Jandyal, whereas offences under Sections 323, 447, 147, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Vikas Singh, Jaipreet Singh alias Honey, Sandeep Charak, Gambhir Singh, and Vishal Singh. According to the Investigating Agency, offences under Sections 302 read with Section 109 IPC and Sections 323, 382,447, 147, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Poonam Kumari, whereas offences under Sections 447, 342, and 34 IPC stand proved against accused Raghunandan Singh.
15. The chargesheet came to be filed against the arrested accused persons. Insofar as accused Jaipreet Singh alias Honey, Vikas Singh, Poonam Kumari, and Gambhir Singh are concerned, they were stated to be evading arrest, and it was stated in the chargesheet that a separate chargesheet would be filed against the said accused persons. The Investigating Agency further concluded that PSI Puneet Sharma, who was present at the spot, allowed the incident to occur due to his inaction. His role is stated to be under scrutiny in an administrative enquiry, and Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 13 of 52 further investigation into his involvement in the instant case is underway. It has been stated in the chargesheet that after coming to light of further evidences or involvement of other conspirators, a supplementary challan shall be filed with the permission of the Court in terms of Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
16. The leaned trial Court, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the counsels appearing on behalf of the arrested accused, passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, whereby the learned trial Court, while charging the accused persons Parshotam Singh, Sheikh Mahmood, Sachin Patyal, Ravinder Gupta, Davinder Pal Singh, Suraj Singh, Varun Kumar, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak for offences punishable under Sections 120- B,447,427,302,307,506,147,201 IPC, discharged the accused persons Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh alias Raghu. It was further concluded by the learned trial Court that involvement of other accused persons, namely Poonam Kumari, Jaipreet Singh alias Honey and Ghambir Singh, who have not been arrested, is prima facie established in connection with the commission of the aforesaid offences. Non bailable warrants have been issued against accused persons namely Poonami Kumari and Ghambir Singh, whereas bail bonds of accused Jaipreet Singh, who was in custody in some other case, have been cancelled and he has been directed to be put up for trial along with other accused. (B) Contentions of accused-Revision Petitioners as regards the charges framed:
17. Learned counsel appearing for the accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah has contended that the best case of the prosecution against the Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 14 of 52 said accused is that he had allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused with an intention to dispossess PW Balbir Singh from the land measuring 33 marlas by any and all means. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. It has been contended that the FIR, which has formed the basis of the impugned order of charge, is highly doubtful, as the time of occurrence has been shown as between 1600 hours to 1630 hours, whereas the informant PW Jagir Singh, as per the contents of the FIR, had lodged the report with the Police at 1825 hours. It has been further contended that the even as per the challan, the attack took place between 1833 hours and 1838 hours, and, therefore, it is improbable that the informant was in knowledge of the details of the occurrence that had yet to take place. It has been contended that in the FIR, the names of accused persons Parshotam Singh, Ravinder Singh, Rajat Jandyal, and Sheikh Mehmood have been shown as the assailants, but after investigation of the case, it was concluded that the accused Ravinder Gupta alias Gola Shah, Sheikh Mehmood, as well as Rajat Jandiyal were not physically present on spot at all and that they had no role in launching the attack upon the deceased. Thus, according to the petitioner, the entire case against him is fabricated.
18. It has been contended that there is no evidence collected by the Investigating Agency that would show the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased. It has been argued that merely on the basis of CDR analysis and tower location, the petitioner cannot be implicated, particularly, when he is resident of the area where the occurrence took place. It has been contended that the learned trial Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 15 of 52 Court has not properly appreciated the statements of material witnesses while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, there are material infirmities in these statements, and the learned trial Court has failed to consider the broad probabilities of the case, inasmuch as the statements of PWs Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh implicating the petitioner are highly improbable.
19. It has been further contended that the learned trial Court has ignored the medical opinion, as the deceased had received only a single blow, which, as per the evidence on record, was inflicted by accused Parshotam Singh with an iron rod which was picked up by him from the scrap lying on the spot. It has been contended that as per the evidence on record, the scuffle took place when deceased Avtar Singh started making a video of the occurrence and his mobile phone was snatched by accused Poonam Kumari. It has been argued that even if case of the prosecution is accepted to be gospel truth, still then it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not a case of murder, because the death of the deceased has taken place in a sudden fight which was provoked by his act of video- graphing the incident. It has also been contended that the circumstance that the accused had reached the spot along with the police and, they were present on spot for a pretty long time before the actual occurrence took place, clearly goes on to show that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased, when it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused present on the spot were armed with any weapons.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 16 of 52
20. Petitioner Sheikh Mehmood, has, besides adopting the contentions that have been raised by the accused Ravinder Gupta in his petition, further contended that on the day of occurrence, he was in Delhi in connection with his medical treatment and he has been wrongly implicated in the case. It has been contended that the story projected by the complainant party is absolutely false and frivolous and that the petitioner had no role in the case. It has further been contended that there has been no premeditation; which is clear from the circumstances that the assailants were not armed with any deadly weapons to kill the deceased, that the fight occurred suddenly on the spot and that there was no conspiracy to kill the deceased. Thus, according to the petitioner, the main accused, at best, can be charged for offence under Section 304-II IPC and not for murder under Section 302 IPC. It has been further contended that on the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court has discharged accused Sharat Puri, yet charge for the offence of murder has been framed against him, which is not sustainable in law. It has been contended that the learned trial Court, without properly evaluating the impugned chargesheet and without properly analyzing statements of the witnesses, has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner.
21. Petitioner Sachin Singh, has, besides adopting the contentions raised by the accused Ravinder Gupta and Sheikh Mehmood in their petitions, contended that he had no role in killing of the deceased and that there is no evidence on record connecting him with the charge framed by the learned trial Court. It has been contended that the evidence on record shows that he was present outside the disputed plot with his papers in hand Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 17 of 52 and he had told the complainant and his brother that his sister had purchased one of the plots and if they had any grievance, they should approach the Court of law. This, according to the petitioner, does not constitute any offence. It has been further contended that the learned trial Court, while framing the charges, has not considered the statement of PW Kulwinder Singh in which no overt act or even participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence has been mentioned. According to the petitioner, no offence is made out against him.
22. In the revision petitions filed by the petitioners/accused Parshotam Singh, Varun Kumar, Suraj Singh, Vikas Singh, Sandeep Charak and Davinder Pal Singh besides reiterating the grounds urged by other accused persons, it has been contended that the events as alleged in the chargesheet at best depict that it was a case of a sudden fight which had erupted on spot after provocation given by deceased Avtar Singh, who tried to videograph the event. It has been submitted that had there been any intention on the part of the petitioners to commit murder of the deceased, they would not have chosen daytime; they would have carried their own weapons and would not have taken the police along with them on the spot. It has been contended that as per the CCTV footage, the petitioners entered the disputed plot at 15:54 pm, whereas deceased Avtar Singh along with his family, entered the plot at 18:00 pm, and accused Poonam Kumari, Suraj Singh and other ladies came on spot at 18:18 pm, while the alleged attack started only at 1903 hours. According to the petitioners, had there been any intention or planning to commit the murder of the deceased Avtar Singh, the assailants would have immediately attacked him when Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 18 of 52 he arrived on spot at 17.26 pm and would not have waited for more than one and a half hours. It has been contended that for this reason the petitioners cannot be charged with the offence of murder.
23. Petitioner Jaipreet Singh alias Honey, while assailing the impugned order passed by the trial Court, has submitted that he was not heard by the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charges, as he was not represented by any counsel before the said Court. Thus, the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On merits, it has been submitted that PWs Balbir Singh, Balkar Singh and Surinder Singh have not stated anything in their statements against the petitioner. It has been contended that the statement of PW Tejidner Singh implicating the petitioner is not admissible when read in conjunction with the statements of PWs Balkar Singh, Balbir Singh and Surinder Singh. It has been further contended that the none of the prosecution witnesses who have been cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence have stated anything about the presence of the petitioner on spot. It has also been contended that offence of criminal trespass is not made out in the present case as there is no material on record to show that the complainant party was in possession of the plot in question which according to them was trespassed by the accused party. It has also been contended that the Investigating Agency has not collected the necessary material from the revenue agency. It has been submitted that the supplementary chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed on the same set of evidence which was the basis of the main chargesheet in which only offences under Sections Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 19 of 52 323,447,147,& 34 IPC are stated to have been committed by the petitioner.
(C) Challenge of prosecution and complainant party to the impugned order to the extent of discharge of some of the accused:
24. UT of Jammu and Kashmir, while challenging the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of discharge of accused Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal and Raghunandan Singh, has contended that the order impugned has been passed without appreciating the circumstantial evidence available on record. It has been contended that the material placed before the trial Court is enough to establish a prima facie case against the aforenamed three accused persons. It has been contended that the statement of PW Balbir Singh has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court while discharging accused Raghunanda Singh. It has been further contended that accused Sharat Puri has been discharged on the same set of evidence on basis of which accused Ravinder Gupta and Sheikh Mehmood have been charged and, therefore, in case no revision is filed against his discharge, accused Ravinder Gupta and Sheikh Mehmood may also seek their discharge on the same grounds.
25. Regarding accused Rajat Jandial, it has been contended that he had arrived on spot of occurrence along with his father, accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah, and merely because he did not participate in the actual incident cannot be made basis for his discharge, especially when PW Taranjit Singh has clearly stated that accused Rajat Jandyal always used to accompany his father in all the meetings that had taken place between accused Ravinder Gupta and the victim party. It has been further Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 20 of 52 contended that the trial Court has ignored the fact that there were more than five persons on spot at the time of actual occurrence, therefore, each of them was a member of an unlawful assembly and hence liable to be charged and prosecuted with the aid of section 149 IPC.
26. PW Balbir Singh, the father of the deceased, has filed a separate revision petition challenging discharge of accused Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal and Raghunandan Singh. Besides this, he has also sought a direction for initiating proceedings against Sub Inspector Puneet Sharma. It has been contended that the trial Court has failed to exercise its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C in respect of SI Puneet Sharma. It has been also contended that the learned trial Court, while discharging the accused, has proceeded to weigh and balance the prosecution evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of framing of charges. It has been contended that it was not open to the trial Court to disbelieve the statements of PWs Jaagir Singh, Balkar Singh, Tejinder Singh, Kamal Kour and Surinder Singh. According to the petitioner, a bare perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the case would show that the offences against discharged accused are made out. It has been contended that the dying declaration of the deceased Avtar Singh, to the effect that SI Puneet Sharma had abetted his murder, has been ignored by the trial Court.
(D). Contentions regarding grant of bail:
27. While seeking bail, the petitioners/arrested accused have, besides contending that the offences regarding which charges have been framed against them by the trial Court are not made out, contended that Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 21 of 52 considerations like gravity of the offence, maximum punishment, specific role of the accused, his antecedents, and social standing are ancillary considerations for evaluating whether bail should be granted in favour of an accused. It has been contended that the petitioners have not been implicated in a case which attracts any special statute prescribing stringent standards for grant of bail. Therefore, the appellations for grant of bail have to be considered under the ordinary law. It has been contended that the petitioners are deeply rooted in the society, possess considerable property, and in the absence of any material on record to show that there is likelihood of their fleeing from justice, they cannot be denied the concession of bail. It has also been contended that eye witnesses cited in the challan are close relatives of the deceased, and, therefore, there is no likelihood of their being influenced by the petitioners.
28. Petitioner Sheikh Mehmood, besides seeking bail on merits on the grounds which have been stated hereinbefore, has also sought bail on medical grounds. It has been submitted that he has been in custody since 03.03.2024 and is suffering from comorbidities, namely a cardiac ailment and Crohn's disease, which require specialized treatment by doctors outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been submitted that his continued incarceration in jail may prove fatal for him. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is a decorated retired police officer and has no criminal background.
29. During the pendency of the bail application of petitioner Sheikh Mehmood, he was examined by the Medical Board, and, vide report dated 14.08.2025, the Board opined that petitioner Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 22 of 52 is a known case of hypertension and he had undergone PTCA stent to LAD surgery on 08.01.2010 at Medanta Hospital, Delhi. It has been further reported that at present he has DOE-II, palpitations, and occasional chest discomfort, and requires continuous medication and close follow- up. The Board has further opined that the petitioner has been suffering from Crohn's disease since the year 2013, which requires regular dietary interventions, treatment, and monitoring.
30. Petitioner Sachin Singh, while adopting the contentions raised by the other petitioners for grant of bail, has also submitted that he is suffering from head trauma and acute headache. In this regard, he has placed medical record on file. Petitioners Parshotam Singh and others have adopted the same grounds for grant of bail as have been urged by the accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah.
(E) Legal position with regard to framing of charges:
31. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, it would be necessary to understand the legal principles which guide the Courts in framing of charges or discharging an accused who has been sent up for trial by the Investigating Agency.
32. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Supreme Court while considering the ambit and scope of Court's power to pass an order of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, analyzed its previous judgments on the issue and laid down the following principles:
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 23 of 52
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out: (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial".
33. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court was reiterated and reaffirmed by it in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 and it was clarified that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but he has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 24 of 52
34. Again, in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Supreme Court, after analyzing its previous precedents on the issue, laid down the following principles regarding the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC:-
"21.On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 25 of 52
vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal".
35. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631, after noticing the aforesaid position of law, has held that the trial Court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the said case that the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing of charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution and sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It was further observed that all that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice.
36. In Shashikant Sharma and ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037, the Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charges, if, from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents by the I.O in the report under Section 173 CrPC, the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out, then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 26 of 52
37. From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it comes to the fore that at the stage of considering the issue as to whether or not the charge is to be framed against an accused, the Court has to examine and analyze the material forming part of the chargesheet. If, after considering the material on record, there exists a sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, charge has to be framed, and if it appears that the charge against an accused is groundless, he has to be discharged. There is an inbuilt element of presumption. It has to be borne in mind that the Court at the stage of framing charges, cannot sift the evidence produced along with the chargesheet with a view to separate the grain from the chaff. The sifting of the material should not be meticulous, so as to convert it into a mini-trial. Even if the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency creates a grave suspicion against an accused, the charge has to be framed.
38. In the instant case, the learned trial Court after considering the material on record annexed to the chargesheet, came to the conclusion that there are grounds for proceeding against the accused persons, namely Parshotam Singh, Sheikh Mehmood, Sachin Patyal, Ravinder Kumar Gupta, Davinder Pal Singh, Suraj Singh, Varun Kumar, Vikas Singh, Sandip Charak, Poonam Kumari, Jaipreet Singh and Gambir Singh, whereas the Court has further concluded that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused persons Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal and Raghunandan Singh alias Raghu. These orders framing charges against the above-named accused persons and the order discharging the three accused persons named hereinabove are under Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 27 of 52 challenge by invoking revisional powers of this Court, and, in fact, one of the accused persons namely Jaipreet Singh alias Raghu has invoked the inherent powers of this Court vested under Section 528 of BNSS to challenge the aforesaid orders.
(F) Scope of Power of Revision against an order of charge/ discharge:
39. The next question that falls for determination is as to what is the scope of power vested with the High Court under Sections 397/482 of CrPC to interfere with an order framing charge/discharging an accused. A three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299, while dealing with the aforesaid question has, after noticing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 held that the order framing charge may not be held to be purely a interlocutory order and can, in a given situation, be interfered with under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution, but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge is to be exercised only in an exceptional situation. The Supreme Court went on to conclude that the High Court has jurisdiction, in an appropriate case, to consider the challenge against an order framing charge, but the same should be entertained in a rarest of rare cases only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. (G) Analysis relating to framing of charges:
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 28 of 52
40. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now deal with the contentions of the petitioners against whom charges have been framed.
The first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for those petitioners against whom charges have been framed by the trial Court is that at best the case of prosecution against the accused persons is hatching of a criminal conspiracy with an intention to dispossess PW Balbir Singh from land measuring 33 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 6 min situated at Village Chowadi and nothing beyond that. It has been contended that the petitioners Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah and Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi were not present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and, if at all they were part of the conspiracy, the same was only restricted to the dispossession of PW Balbir Singh from the land in question and not to commit murder of deceased Avtar Singh. It has been contended that even as per the chargesheet, the case of the prosecution only relates to this aspect of the matter.
41. Before testing the merits of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, it would be apt to understand the legal position as regards the offence of criminal conspiracy.
42. So far as the offence of criminal conspiracy is concerned, the same is defined under Section 120-A of IPC. Section 120-B of IPC provides for punishment of criminal conspiracy. It would be apt to refer to aforenoted provisions of IPC. The same are reproduced as under:
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 29 of 52 (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
43. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in order to constitute a criminal conspiracy, there has to be an agreement between two or more persons for causing an illegal act. An offence of criminal conspiracy can only be made out when, on the basis of the material collected, it is established that there was a pre-meeting of mind of the accused persons with the alleged offender who is being tried under Section 120-B to commit an illegal act.
44. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors Vs. Somnath Thapa and Ors (1996) 4 SCC 659, has considered the issue as to how an offence under Section 120-B could be made out. The Court after considering its previous precedents on the same issue laid down the material ingredients of a criminal conspiracy in the following manner: Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 30 of 52
"24. The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead us to conclude that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use."
The above ratio was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of UP & Ors, (2017) 8 SCC 791.
45. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that committing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy, but it is not always possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct proof. The existence of conspiracy and its objectives can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. It is also a settled law that the offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and mere agreement to commit an offence is punishable, even if the offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement and it is not necessary that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do.
46. The learned trial Court, while dealing with the contention of the petitioners with regard to offence of criminal conspiracy, has traced the Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 31 of 52 entire history of the dispute which led to the unfortunate killing of deceased Avtar Singh. When we go through the material on record with regard to the history of the dispute which led to the occurrence, it appears that there was a long-standing dispute between PW Balbir Singh on the one side and accused Ravinder Gupta alias Golla Shah, Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi, Parshotam Singh, and Reva Sharma, the sister of accused Sachin Patyal on the other side. In this regard, a number of civil cases are going on between the parties before the Civil Court(s) in which various orders have been passed by the Court(s) from time to time. The report of the revenue agency obtained by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, which forms part of the chargesheet, would show that the land measuring 05 kanals and 13 marlas in Khasra No. 6 of village Chowadi was mutated on 18.11.1987 in favour of one Swaran Singh in terms of Section 3A of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. Said Swaran Singh sold land measuring 04 kanals in favour of Harjeet Singh and Daljeet Singh, regarding which mutation was attested on 30.08.1993. The legal heirs of Harjeet Singh and Daljeet Singh sold this four kanals of land to Sheikh Ghulam Mustafa, the father of accused Sheikh Mehmood, vide sale deed dated 28.07.2002. The balance one kanal and 13 marlas of land was sold by Swaran Singh to PW Balbir Singh vide sale deed dated 12.06.2004. Sheikh Ghulam Mustafa is stated to have executed a sale deed dated 11.06.2006 in respect of two kanals of land in favour of PW Rattan Dev Singh and thereafter another two kanals of land in favour of the same person vide sale deed dated 10.11.2006.PW Rattan Dev Singh is stated to have sold land measuring 13½ marlas in favour of Rakesh Bhasin and Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 32 of 52 Kiran Bhasin vide sale deed dated 22.11.2018 and he executed another sale deed in respect of land measuring 1 kanal ½ marla in favour of Reva Gupta on 22.04.2018. PW Rattan Dev Singh executed another sale deed dated 06.06.2019 in respect of 7 marlas of land in favour of Anita Devi.
47. It is pertinent to mention here that PW Rattan Dev Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC has claimed that while he had purchased 4 kanals of land from father of accused Sheikh Mehmood for an amount of Rs. 2.10 lacs, later on, at his instance, he offered to return the said land to father of accused Sheikh Mehmood as he wanted his money back. Thereafter he received the amount of Rs. 2.10 lacs back from father of accused Sheikh Mehmood and, at his behest, he executed a power of attorney in respect of the said land in favour of accused Parshotam Singh in respect of four kanals of land which he had purchased from Ghulam Mustafa.
48. Besides the above material, the Investigating Agency has collected copies of complaints made by PW Balbir Singh against accused Ravinder Kumar Gupta, accused Sheikh Mehmood, and accused Parshotam Singh before various police authorities, the Defence Minister of India, and the Prime Minister's Office, in which PW Balbir Singh has repeatedly asserted that the aforenamed accused persons are sending goons to grab his plot of land measuring 33 marlas located at Greater Kailash, Jammu. It has also been alleged in these complaints that the aforenamed accused persons have written a threatening message on the door of the room which he had built on the land in question. There is also material on record to show that the police had tried to settle the matter at one point of time and Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 33 of 52 PW Balbir Singh decided not to pursue the complaints as, according to him, the matter was sought to be settled with the intervention of PW T.S. Toni. The said witness in his statement recorded during investigation, has clearly stated that despite his efforts, the matter could not be settled, which ultimately led to the incident that took place on 30.04.2024 resulting in the homicide of Avtar Singh, the son of PW Balbir Singh.
49. From the aforesaid material on record, it is clear that there was a long-standing dispute and enmity between PW Balbir Singh on one side and accused Parshotam Singh, Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Golla Shah, and Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi on the other. It has also come on record that even though the father of Sheikh Mehmood had disposed of his four kanals of land in the said khasra number in favour of PW Rattan Dev Singh, yet it was only a sham transaction, inasmuch as the father of accused Sheikh Mehmood had received back the land after returning the money to aforesaid witness and it was at his instance that a power of attorney in respect of the said land was executed by PW Rattan Dev Singh in favour of accused Parshotam Singh, who in turn executed various sale deeds transferring small parcels of land out of this four kanals in favour of different purchasers. It has also come to the fore from the material collected by the Investigating Agency that there was a rancorous dispute going on between the parties regarding the identity of the plot purchased by PW Balbir Singh and the four kanals of land in respect of which accused Parshotam Singh had obtained the power of attorney at the behest of accused Sheikh Mehmood. This dispute led to civil litigation, complaints and counter-complaints, and even threats to life of PW Balbar Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 34 of 52 Singh from the accused party. There is material on record showing that threatening messages were written on the door of PW Balbir Singh's plot and that his telephone number painted over there was erased. It has come in the statement of PW Balbir Singh that on the gate of his plot, the words "Sardara Teri Maut Aaye Kardi ae" were written and this was done at the behest of accused Sheikh Mohammad, Ravinder Gupta and Parshotam Singh. He has further stated that on 24.04.2024, a few days prior to the occurrence, the aforenamed accused persons, incidentally met him and they made the following comment: "Sardara tenu aje bi samajh nahi aayi, tera ilaaj pakka karna pauna, eh plot assi khali karwana hai, nahi assan chhadna. Tera khane wala nahi rahega." In the face of the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the abovenamed accused had a design to dispossess PW Balbir Singh from the land in question and, in that direction, they were prepared to go to any extent.
50. From the analysis of the material referred to hereinbefore, it comes to the fore that there are circumstances established on the basis of the material on record which unerringly point towards the involvement of the aforenamed accused persons, namely Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Gupta, in the conspiracy with the principal offender accused Parshotam Singh to dispossess PW Balbir Singh from the land in question at any cost, including doing away with his life, which is apparent from the circumstances relating to life threats extended to PW Balbir Singh at the behest of the aforenamed accused persons. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the aforenamed accused persons are Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 35 of 52 involved in the conspiracy which led to the death of Avtar Singh, the son of PW Balbir Singh.
51. Another star argument of the petitioners who have been charged by the trial Court is that the case at hand, at best, can be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not a case of murder as has been projected by the prosecution. In this regard, it has been contended that the deceased had received a single blow on his head, that too from a weapon (iron rod) which was picked up by the assailant accused Parshotam Singh from the spot itself. It has been contended that the accused persons had come to the spot along with the police personnel, and it was only because of the provocation given by the deceased Avtar Singh, who was filming the occurrence with his mobile phone, that the incident took place. These circumstances, according to the accused persons who have been charged, point to the fact that there was no premeditation on their part and that the incident was a result of a sudden fight.
52. It is true that, as per the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, the actual incident of death of deceased Avtar Singh took place after a long gap of time upon arrival of the complainant party on the spot, and it is also a fact that the police personnel were present on the spot at the relevant time. There is no doubt about the fact that the assailants were not armed with any weapons and that the weapon used for causing death of deceased Avtar Singh was picked up from the spot itself. However, these circumstances in themselves cannot form a ground for concluding, at this stage, that it is not a case of murder and that it is a case of sudden Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 36 of 52 fight. This is so keeping in view the circumstances in which the occurrence has taken place.
53. As already stated, there was a long-standing enmity and dispute between the complainant party and the accused party in respect of the land in question. There is material on record that a number of life threats were extended to PW Balbir Singh, who had approached the police authorities and other dignitaries in authority complaining about the activities of the accused party by bringing to their notice the threat to his life and property. Prima facie, it appears that the accused party wanted to dispossess the complainant party from the land in question and, if there was any resistance from their side, they were prepared to deal with it by removing the said resistance by all or any means, including inflicting casualties upon the complainant party.
54. When we go to the statements of PWs Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh, the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, it comes to the fore that the deceased Avtar Singh was given two blows with two different bricks and one blow with an iron pipe on his head. The first blow on the head of the deceased was given by accused Parshotam Singh; the second blow on his head was given by accused Varun Kumar. When PW Balbir Singh tried to save his son, he was dragged for 10-15 meters by accused Parshotam Singh, and he was also dragged and beaten by accused Varun Kumar and other accused. In fact, accused Varun Kumar tried to hit PW Balbir Singh on his head with a brick, but he was saved by PW Surinder Singh, and the blow of the brick landed on the head of PW Surinder Singh. It has come in the evidence on record that accused Parshotam Singh launched an Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 37 of 52 attack on the head of deceased Avtar Singh with an iron pipe picked up from the spot with full force, whereafter accused Suraj Singh gave a beating to deceased Avtar Singh on his head with fists and blows repeatedly till he went unconscious. From this sequence of events, it can prima facie be inferred that the assailants had a definite intention to kill deceased Avtar Singh. The fact that he was given two blows with bricks on his head and another blow on his head with an iron pipe, whereafter he was repeatedly given blows with fists on his head till he went unconscious, goes on to show that the assailants intended to cause his death.
55. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsels appearing for the charged petitioners that, as per the post-mortem report, there is only one head injury and, therefore, the statements of eye- witnesses that the deceased was given two different brick blows cannot be believed. In this regard, it is to be noted that, as per the post-mortem report, there were multiple hemorrhagic contusions present on both the cerebral hemispheres and there was a fracture of the left side of the frontal bone extending to the left parietal bone of the deceased. There may have been only one external injury on the left frontal region of the deceased, yet the impact of the injury has resulted in multiple hemorrhagic contusions. It is to be noted that, as per the evidence on record, the deceased was wearing a turban, and it is because of this only that two blows with bricks on his head may not have caused external injury on his head but certainly these two blows must have contributed to multiple hemorrhagic contusions which were found on the frontal region of the deceased. The fact that the deceased was given blows of fists even after Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 38 of 52 having been hit by the iron rod on his head till he went unconscious shows that the assailant party had acted with cruelty and they intended to cause his death even though filming of the occurrence may have triggered the assault on the deceased. Thus, it cannot be stated that the act of the assailants in the present case constitutes an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The contention of the petitioners/charged accused is, therefore, without any merit.
56. Apart from the above, merely because the post mortem report of the deceased shows a single injury on the head of the deceased does not lead to the inference that the assailants did not intend to cause his death. The question whether the nature of injury received by the deceased as reflected in the postmortem report would lead to infer that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or it is a case of murder can be answered only after recording the statements of the eye witnesses and the medical officer concerned.
57. In the abovesaid context support can be drawn from the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Magrey v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657. It was a case where accused persons had, after trespassing into the house of the complainant party, assaulted them and the deceased received a single blow with a wooden log, as a result of which she succumbed to injuries in the hospital. The post mortem report reflected the cause of death of the deceased as cardio respiratory failure. Though the accused were charged for offence under section 302 IPC but the trial Court discharged the accused of the said offence and framed charge under section 304 Part II. Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 39 of 52 The said order was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court as well as the trial court order held that charge for offence u/s 302 IPC is made out against the accused. It would be apt to refer to the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case. The same are reproduced as under.
30. The post-mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence. Whether the "cardio respiratory failure" had any nexus with the incident in question would have to be determined on the basis of the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses as well as the medical officer concerned i.e. the expert witness who may be examined by the prosecution as one of its witnesses.
31. To put it in other words, whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault on the deceased by the accused persons could have been determined only after the recording of oral evidence of the eyewitnesses and the expert witness along with the other substantive evidence on record. The post-
mortem report of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body. It is not substantive evidence. The doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive evidence. The post-mortem report can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section 157, or to refresh his memory under Section 159, or to contradict his statement in the witness box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the court.
32. The prosecution should have been given opportunity to prove all the relevant facts including the post-mortem report through the medical officer concerned by leading oral evidence and thereby seek Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 40 of 52 the opinion of the expert. It was too early on the part of the trial court as well as the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that since no serious injuries were noted in the post-mortem report, the death of the deceased on account of "cardio respiratory failure" cannot be said to be having any nexus with the incident in question.
33. Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the post-mortem report on record. The High Court also overlooked such fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and proceeded to affirm the same.
34. We may now proceed to consider the issue on hand from a different angle. It is a settled position of law that in a criminal trial, the prosecution can lead evidence only in accordance with the charge framed by the trial court. Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged. It is not necessary then for him to meet evidence relating to the offences with which he has not been charged. He is merely to answer the charge as framed. The Code does not require him to meet all evidence led by the prosecution. He has only to rebut evidence bearing on the charge. The prosecution case is necessarily limited by the charge. It forms the foundation of the trial which starts with it and the accused can justifiably concentrate on meeting the subject-matter of the charge against him. He need not cross-examine witnesses with regard to offences he is not charged with nor need he give any evidence in defence in respect of such charges.
35. Once the trial court decides to discharge an accused person from the offence punishable under Section 302IPC and proceeds to frame the lesser charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, the prosecution thereafter would not be in a position to lead any evidence beyond the charge as framed. To put it otherwise, the prosecution will be thereafter compelled to proceed as if it has now to Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 41 of 52 establish only the case of culpable homicide and not murder. On the other hand, even if the trial court proceeds to frame charge under Section 302IPC in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution still it would be open for the accused to persuade the Court at the end of the trial that the case falls only within the ambit of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304IPC. In such circumstances, in the facts of the present case, it would be more prudent to permit the prosecution to lead appropriate evidence whatever it is worth in accordance with its original case as put up in the charge-sheet. Such approach of the trial court at times may prove to be more rationale and prudent.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of the High Court as well as the order of the trial court deserve to be set aside.
58. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be stated that death of the deceased would qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the face of the material collected by the investigating agency, which has been discussed hereinbefore, the effect of circumstances like presence of police on spot or happening of actual assault after a lapse of considerable time on determination of the question whether the accused intended to cause death of the deceased or it was a case of sudden fight can be considered only after recording the statements of eye witnesses and not at this stage. Undertaking such an exercise at this stage would amount to holding a mini-trial, which is impermissible in law.
59. It has been next contended that the very basis of the case is doubtful, inasmuch as in the FIR, the name of petitioner Sheikh Mehmood is mentioned, whereas as per the chargesheet, he was not present on the spot as he was at Delhi undergoing treatment. It has also been contended that Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 42 of 52 the fact that the FIR has been registered even before the actual incident shows that whole case of the prosecution is doubtful.
60. It is true that in the FIR lodged by PW Jagir Singh, the name of petitioner Sheikh Mehmood has been shown as an accused, and it appears from a reading of the FIR that he is shown to be present on the spot, but that by itself does not make the whole case doubtful, particularly keeping in view the material collected by the Investigating Agency after the investigation of the case. Similarly, the contention of the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged even prior to the actual occurrence, which makes it doubtful, would also not falsify the case of the prosecution, particularly at the stage of framing of charges. These contentions may very well offer a good defence to the accused at the time of final disposal of the case after trial, but at the stage of framing of charges, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on the basis of these discrepancies.
61. Petitioner Sachin Singh has contended that, as per the evidence on record, he was only present on the spot at the relevant time but he has not made any overt act, as such, he cannot be stated to have committed any offence as he had no role in the killing of the deceased.
62. It is true that accused Sachin has not actually participated in the assault committed by the other accused upon the complainant party, but there is evidence on record to show that he was present on the spot along with documents relating to the plot of land belonging to his sister. There is also evidence on record to show that he had entered into altercation and arguments with PW Jagir Singh and PW Balbir Singh and that he intended Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 43 of 52 to take possession of the portion of the land which, according to him, belonged to his sister. So, it is not a case where petitioner Sachin Singh was only a bystander, but it is a case where he had a definite interest in dispossessing PW Balbir Singh from the land in question so that he could recover possession of the portion of land which, according to him, belonged to his sister. For this purpose, he had accompanied the principal offender accused Parshotam Singh to the spot. This circumstance clearly shows that he was part of the conspiracy to commit the offence for which accused Parshotam Singh has been charged.
63. Similarly, so far as accused Vikas Singh, Sandeep Charak, Ghambir Singh, and Vishal Singh are concerned, although as per the chargesheet, offence under Section 302 IPC was not found established against them, yet, as per the impugned order passed by the trial Court, these accused/petitioners have also been found involved in the same offences for which the principal offender Parshotam Singh has been charged, obviously because there is material on record to show that these accused persons, pursuant to a well-knit conspiracy, presented themselves on the spot at the time of the occurrence and they have, in fact, lent their support to the principal offender Parshotam Singh in committing the murder of deceased Avtar Singh and in assaulting the other prosecution witnesses/injured, details whereof are given vividly in the statements of the eye witnesses. Their roles in the alleged crime cannot be separated from the role played by the principal offender, as they were part of the conspiracy which led to the death of deceased Avtar Singh. Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 44 of 52
64. That takes us to the contentions raised by accused/petitioner Jaipreet Singh alias Honey. It is his contention that his name as an assailant does not figure in the statements of PWs Balbir Singh, Balkar Singh and Surinder Singh, whom he is alleged to have beaten up as per the statement of PW Tejinder Singh. Hence, the statement of PW Tejinder Singh cannot be relied upon. It has been further contended that the Ld. trial Court has not heard him before framing charges against him.
65. In the above context it is to be noted that although PWs Balbir Singh, Balhar Singh and Surinder Singh have not named accused Jaipreet Singh in their statements, yet PWs Balhar Singh and Surinder Singh have categorically stated that they were assaulted by one person, with full black dress with white strips on his trousers who gave beating to them with a bamboo stick. PW Balbir Singh has stated that he was given beating from behind by someone. There is also CCTV footage seized by the Police which establishes his presence on spot. When these statements and CCTV footage are read in conjunction with the statement of PW Tejinder Singh, who has identified accused Jaipreet Singh alias Honey as one of the assailants, it raises a strong suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime. It is true that accused Jaipreet Singh has not been heard by the Ld. trial Court before framing of charges against him, yet once he has been afforded opportunity of hearing by this Court in the present proceedings, it would be an unnecessary formality to remand the case for fresh hearing to his extent.
66. Much debate has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties with regard to the discharge of accused Sharat Puri. According Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 45 of 52 to learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory and learned counsel appearing for PW Balbir Singh, his role is similar to the role of accused Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Gupta, therefore, on the same set of evidence on which the aforenamed two accused have been charged, accused Sharat Puri could not have been discharged by the trial Court.
67. In the above context, it is to be noted that the evidence as regards the involvement of accused Sharat Puri in the alleged occurrence and the conspiracy is not the same as the evidence and material which is available in respect of accused Sheikh Mehmood and accused Ravinder Gupta. It is true that PW Balbir Singh and PW Kulwinder Singh have implicated accused Sharat Puri in their statements by stating that he was also part of the conspiracy of which accused Ravinder Gupta and Sheikh Mehmood were kingpins. PW Balbir Singh has stated that on 24.04.2024, accused Sharat Puri was with accused Parshotam Singh, Sheikh Mehmood, and Ravinder Gupta when they extended life threats to him. He has further stated that the aforementioned accused was associated with the whole planning with other accused. PW Kulwinder Singh has stated that he heard accused Sharat Puri telling the other accused persons that he had talked to accused Ravinder Gupta, and accused Sheikh Mehmood, who had assured him not to worry. The witness further stated that he heard accused Sharat Puri saying that he had influenced the higher-ups and he further ordered accused Parshotam Singh to take over the possession of the plot of PW Balbir Singh at any cost. PW Taran jeet Singh alias Toni has also deposed about the involvement of accused Parshotam Singh in the negotiations regarding the plot in question with PW Balbir Singh.
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 46 of 52
68. So far as the statement of PW Kulwinder Singh is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon, as it does not appear to be trustworthy having regard to the broad probabilities of the case. He has talked about what accused Sharat Puri was narrating to accused Parshotam Singh. This conversation, according to him, was overheard by him while he was replacing the punctured tyre of his vehicle on the roadside. He has further stated that accused Parshotam Singh came out of his office at that time and started conversing with accused Sharat Puri. It is unbelievable that two persons would enter into a conspiracy to commit a crime and talk about it on the roadside after coming out of their office, when they had ample opportunity to converse with each other on this subject in the office. The presence of PW Kulwinder Singh on the spot and the manner in which he overheard the conversation is improbable. Therefore, his statement as regards the involvement of accused Sharat Puri in the conspiracy cannot be relied upon.
69. There is yet another aspect of the matter which distinguishes the case of accused Sharat Puri from the case of other accused. So far as civil litigation with regard to the plot of land belonging to PW Balbir Singh is concerned, accused Sharat Puri has never been impleaded as party to this litigation by him. Even in the latest case which was filed by PW Balbir in the year 2024, accused Sharat Puri has not been impleaded as a defendant. Only accused Parshotam Singh, Ravinder Gupta, and Sheikh Mehmood were impleaded as defendants to the said suit. Besides this, as per the report of the revenue authorities, accused Sharat Puri does not seem to be connected in any manner with the land belonging to PW Balbir Singh or Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 47 of 52 the land adjacent to it. Besides this, PW Balbir Singh has all along been making complaints before the police and other authorities against accused Ravinder Gupta, Parshotam Singh and Sheikh Mehmood right from the year 2020 but he has never made a complaint against accused Sharat Puri. All of a sudden he has been named by the said witness as a conspirator once the occurrence took place. Thus, his case is entirely on a different pedestal as compared to the cases of accused Sheikh Mehmood and Ravinder Gupta. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly proceeded to discharge accused Sharat Puri.
70. Similar is the case relating to accused Rajat Jandyal, whose discharge has been challenged by the Union Territory of J&K by filing a revision petition. The only evidence on record against him is that he was accompanying his father accused Ravinder Gupta, who was standing outside the plot of PW Balbir Singh at the time of the occurrence. His mere presence, without any overt act on his part, would not involve him either in the conspiracy or in the actual crime. The reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court in discharging the said accused cannot be faulted.
71. So far as accused Raghunandan Singh is concerned, he has also been discharged by the learned trial Court. The only evidence against him is that PW Balbir Singh in the initial part of his statement has stated that accused Raghunandan Singh had parked his vehicle outside the plot in question which resulted in blocking of the passage, as a result of which, injured Avtar Singh could not be brought out. However, in the later part of his statement, PW Balbir Singh has categorically stated that it was accused Raghunandan Singh who helped him in removing the vehicles Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 48 of 52 from the spot. Thus, his role in the alleged crime is not substantiated from the material on record.
72. That takes us to the role of SI Puneet Sharma. As per the charge sheet, his role is still under investigation. Besides this, learned trial court has vide the impugned order made certain observations with regard to his role leaving it to the investigating agency to hold further probe. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion about the role of SI Puneet Sharma at this stage and in these proceedings.
73. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the trial Court whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners named hereinbefore is perfectly in accordance with law. Similarly, the impugned order to the extent of discharge of three accused named hereinbefore, is also in accordance with law. Having regard to the limited scope of power of revision available with this Court, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the said order. All the revision petitions filed by the accused persons as well as by the complainant and the State, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
(H) Analysis relating to plea of bail:
74. That takes us to the applications for grant of bail filed by the accused persons. The consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in matters relating to grant of bail is that the following factors should be considered while making a decision to grant or refuse bail: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 49 of 52 apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; & (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
75. Learned counsel for the accused persons/petitioners have vehemently argued that merely because the accused have been charged for the offence of murder cannot be a ground to refuse bail to them. It has been contended that mere gravity of the offence and severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail when there is nothing to suggest that if the accused are released on bail, they are likely to abscond with a view to evade trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court to support their aforesaid contention.
76. So far as petitioner/accused Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi is concerned, an additional ground has been urged that he is suffering from Crohn's disease besides being a known case of hypertension. Thus, he has sought bail on medical grounds as well. Similarly, petitioner Sachin Patyal has also pleaded medical grounds for grant of bail.
77. As has already been concluded, all the accused petitioners have been charged, inter alia, for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, which carries punishment of death or imprisonment for life. As per Section 480 of BNSS, a person cannot be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though the High Court has wider powers while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 483 of Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 50 of 52 BNSS, yet prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge is an important factor to be taken into consideration while considering plea of bail. Once it has been found on the basis of the material on record that the petitioners are involved in a heinous offence like murder, granting bail to them at this stage, when the statements of material witnesses are yet to be recorded, would not be a proper exercise of discretion, particularly keeping in view the long standing enmity between the accused and PW Balbir Singh, who, as per material in record, has been facing death threats from the accused for the past many years. It is not a case where the petitioners have been in custody for a long period of time, so that they can claim bail on the grounds of long incarceration. The charges against the petitioners have been framed on 27.11.2024, and in fact, examination-in- chief of some of the prosecution witnesses has been recorded, but their cross-examination has been deferred at the behest of the petitioners/accused persons. Thus, there is no delay in the progress of the trial of the case so as to entitle the accused to grant of bail. The petitioners at this stage, therefore, do not deserve the concession of bail.
78. Coming to the medical grounds urged by petitioner Sheikh Mehmood alias Modi, it is clear from the medical record that the said petitioner/accused underwent heart surgery way back on 18.01.2010 and he has been suffering from Crohn's disease since the year 2013. There is nothing on record to show that his condition has deteriorated while being in jail. It is not reported that his aforesaid ailments cannot be managed while he is in jail. The only thing that has been reported by the Medical Board is that he requires continuous medication and close follow-up. This Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 51 of 52 can be provided to him even while being incarcerated in jail. This Court, therefore, does not feel that the condition of the said petitioner/accused is of such a nature as would entitle him to grant of bail on medical grounds. Similarly, the health condition, as per medical record produced by accused Sachin Singh, does not go on to show that he is suffering from any serious ailment. He is, therefore, not entitled to bail on medical grounds. However, if health condition of abovenamed accused deteriorates, they would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail on medical grounds before the trial Court.
(I) Conclusion:
79. For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions, including the criminal revision petitions, the petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, and the bail applications, are dismissed. The learned trial Court shall expedite trial of the case.
80. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Srinagar 04.11.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy"
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IS SPEAKING: YES
WHETHER THE JUGMENT IS REPORTABLE: YES
Crl R No.61/2024 & connected matters Page 52 of 52