| SC praises trial Judge, grants bail to ex-SSP Sheikh Mehmoood, Ravinder Kumar Gupta | | Greater Kailash Murder Case | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, June 1: The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Sheikh Mehmoood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Gola Shah in the Greater Kailash (Chowadi) alleged land-grab murder case of Jammu, while recording appreciation for the trial judge for painstakingly ensuring the recording of evidence of all eyewitnesses.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma partly allowed the appeals filed against a common order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dated November 4, 2025, which had rejected the bail pleas of six accused in the case. The apex court, however, refused bail to Parshottam Singh, Suraj Singh, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak, holding that the material on record did not make out a case for their release at this stage.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Jagir Singh at Police Station Gangyal on April 30, 2024, alleging that several persons had attempted to dispossess his brother Balbir Singh from a parcel of land measuring 33 marlas at Greater Kailash, Chowadi, Jammu. During the alleged attack, Balbir Singh’s son Avtar Singh sustained injuries and later succumbed, following which the police added offences of murder, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy.
All six appellants were arrested on May 3, 2024. The chargesheet, according to the Supreme Court order, includes alleged CCTV footage of the occurrence, call detail records exchanged among accused persons and statements of eyewitnesses. The prosecution has cited 44 witnesses in the trial.
The Supreme Court particularly noted the progress made before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, after the apex court had earlier intervened to prevent avoidable delay in the trial. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court had requested the trial court to fix two consecutive dates every week for recording the evidence of eyewitnesses, observing that the trial was being unnecessarily protracted.
Thereafter, on April 6, the Supreme Court again encouraged the trial court to complete the cross-examination of eyewitnesses at the earliest, preferably by May 25. When the matter was finally taken up, the apex court was informed that out of the six alleged eyewitnesses, evidence of five had been completed, while the sixth eyewitness had been dropped from the list of proposed witnesses.
Acknowledging the effort made by the court conducting the trial, the Supreme Court observed: “At the outset, we record our appreciation for the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Anoop Sharma who has painstakingly ensured recording of the evidence of all the eyewitnesses.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Sheikh Mehmoood, submitted that none of the eyewitnesses had attributed any specific role to him during their testimony and that his presence at the scene of occurrence was not established through CCTV footage. It was further submitted that Mehmoood, aged 73 years, suffers from Crohn’s disease and requires specialised medical treatment and monitoring.
Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan, appearing for Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Gola Shah, argued that the testimony relating to his alleged role had undergone material changes during the proceedings. He submitted that the CCTV footage did not show Gola Shah or his son entering the plot during the alleged occurrence and relied upon his advanced age and incarceration since May 2024 to seek bail.
Appearing for Parshottam Singh, Suraj Singh, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak, Senior Advocate Dr. Singhvi contended that the CCTV footage did not support the allegation that Parshottam Singh used an iron pipe to attack the deceased. It was also argued that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel and did not disclose the intention required to constitute murder.
Opposing the appeals, Advocate Parth Awasthi, appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and Advocate Karman Singh Johal, representing the complainant, submitted that sufficient evidence existed against all the accused and that their influence in society and over the police administration raised a serious likelihood of interference with the trial.
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a guiding principle but not an absolute rule, particularly in serious offences involving allegations of murder and conspiracy. The Court held that the issue of bail must be considered in the light of the gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, antecedents, individual roles, delay in trial, age, medical condition and possibility of tampering with witnesses.
The Bench observed that, prima facie, the case could not be treated as one involving no overt act of homicidal death, no material linking the death with conspiracy, or no shared intention. It, therefore, declined bail to Parshottam Singh, Suraj Singh, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak at this stage.
However, granting bail to Sheikh Mehmoood and Ravinder Kumar Gupta alias Gola Shah, the Supreme Court noted that both were septuagenarians. The Court observed that one was in poor health requiring regular medical care, while the evidence against the other appeared, to a certain extent, inconsistent.
The two have been directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and comply with conditions imposed for an unhindered trial. The Court restrained them from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts before the court. It further made clear that their bail may be cancelled in case of breach of conditions or unjustified absence from trial proceedings.
Reposing confidence in the trial court, the Supreme Court encouraged the Sessions Judge to further expedite the proceedings and make every endeavour to complete recording of the prosecution evidence by the end of March 2027. The four accused denied bail have been given liberty to renew their pleas thereafter before the competent court. (JNF) |
|
