Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the bail application of the alleged main accused in a 2020 poisoning murder case of Poonch district, observing that circumstantial evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because of the absence of eyewitnesses and that granting bail at this stage could result in a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani dismissed the bail plea of Mohd Tariq, a resident of Loran, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch, who is facing trial in FIR No. 30/2020 registered at Police Station Loran under Sections 302, 109, 295 and 201 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the case pertains to the alleged murder of 22-year-old Sheraz Yousif, whose body was found in a mosque at Danna Loran on October 22, 2020.
The prosecution alleged that the accused owed Rs 50,000 to the deceased, who had been demanding repayment. Allegedly angered by the demand, Tariq, in connivance with other accused persons, called Sheraz to Danna Loran on the pretext of returning the money.
The deceased was allegedly taken to the house of co-accused Kousar Parveen, where poison was forcibly administered to him. He was subsequently confined to a bathroom, and after his death, his body was allegedly shifted to a nearby mosque to conceal evidence.
The forensic examination detected an organophosphorus insecticide, while the Medical Board attributed the death to cardiorespiratory arrest resulting from organophosphorus poisoning.
During arguments, Advocate Mumtaz Choudhary, appearing for the accused, submitted that his client had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that the deceased was allegedly a drug addict and might have died due to an overdose.
The defence further submitted that the accused had remained incarcerated for more than five years and that three co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court on July 10, 2024. Accordingly, bail was sought on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and parity.
However, Government Advocate Eishaan Dadhichi, representing the Union Territory, strongly opposed the application, contending that the accused was allegedly the principal offender and that the medical and forensic evidence, coupled with the circumstances collected during the investigation, supported his involvement in the crime.
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Wani observed that heinous and pre-planned offences are frequently committed in secrecy and that investigating agencies must necessarily rely upon circumstantial evidence to identify the perpetrators.
The Court emphasised that circumstantial evidence cannot be discarded merely because direct eyewitness testimony is unavailable. However, such evidence must ultimately form a complete chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused.
The High Court further observed that courts are not required to conduct a mini-trial while considering bail applications, as the appreciation of evidence and determination of guilt or innocence fall within the domain of the trial.
Explaining the expression "reasonable grounds", the Court observed that it means something more than mere suspicion or conjecture but less than proof, and must be assessed in the context of the evidence available in each case.
The Court further held that the grant of bail in offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception rather than the rule, and judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, balancing individual liberty against the larger interests of society.
Rejecting the plea of parity, the High Court observed that the petitioner stood charged as the alleged principal offender in the murder case, unlike the co-accused who had already secured bail.
Significantly, the Court noted that prosecution evidence had already been closed and the trial was listed for final arguments. It observed that granting bail to the accused at this advanced stage was likely to cause a miscarriage of justice.
While refusing bail, the High Court requested the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and pronounce its final judgment.
The Court also directed the Trial Court to examine the issue concerning the framing of charges, particularly the abetment charge against the alleged main accused, before concluding the trial.
Justice Wani clarified that the observations made in the bail order were confined to the limited purpose of deciding the application and would not prejudice the merits of the criminal trial. (JNF) |
