Court highlights applicant's criminal antecedents, ongoing probe, and risk of witness tampering as key reasons for bail denial in FIR involving use of weapons and multiple absconding accused.
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, dismissed the bail application of Kewal Krishan, accused in FIR No. 314/2026 registered at Rajouri Police Station. The case relates to a violent and allegedly pre-planned assault on two individuals, Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi, who sustained serious injuries in the attack.
The accused, Kewal Krishan, sought bail on grounds that the injured persons had been discharged from the hospital and that he was not present at the crime scene, supported by CCTV footage showing him attending his petrol pump at the time of the incident. He also argued the absence of specific overt acts attributed to him and incomplete arrests of co-accused should not prejudice his release.
However, the Court noted multiple compelling factors against granting bail. The investigation remains incomplete, with key witnesses' statements yet to be recorded, including that of one injured person still undergoing medical treatment. Crucially, five co-accused remain absconding, and the weapons allegedly used in the assault have not been recovered. The Court underscored the serious and premeditated nature of the attack involving hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons, and other arms, emphasizing the gravity of the charges.
Further weighing against the applicant was his criminal history, including involvement in three prior FIRs, one of which was not disclosed in the bail petition, amounting to suppression of material facts. The Court highlighted that incomplete disclosure of criminal antecedents during bail proceedings undermines the applicant's credibility and militates against bail.
The Court applied well-established Supreme Court parameters for bail, considering factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of absconding, risk of witness intimidation, and the impact on the ongoing investigation. It observed that the applicant's status as a former Sarpanch and his influence in the locality increased the risk of interference with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
While acknowledging the fundamental right to personal liberty, the Court emphasized that bail is an exception and must be granted cautiously, especially in serious cases where the investigation is ongoing and the accused's release could jeopardize justice. The Court also allowed impleadment of Neeraj Sharma, the complainant and a close relative of the victims, to ensure his voice in the proceedings.
In conclusion, the High Court found no material change in circumstances since the earlier bail rejection by the Principal Sessions Judge and held that the serious allegations, incomplete investigation, and applicant's antecedents collectively warranted continued incarceration. The bail application was thus dismissed, with a clear instruction that observations made were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial court's independent adjudication.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's balanced approach in safeguarding personal liberty while ensuring that serious offences, particularly those involving premeditated violence and weapons, are thoroughly investigated without interference.
Bottom Line:
Bail application dismissed due to serious and pre-planned nature of allegations, incomplete investigation, applicant's antecedents, and possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 109, 126(2), 191(2); Arms Act, 1959 Sections 4, 25
Kewal Krishan v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972590
