Read Time: 07 minutes
The court found that “It is unimaginable that an officer of the level of a Sessions Judge would approach the bail application of a person, who is in incarceration, in such a casual manner”
Emphasising the need for judicial diligence, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has issued severe criticism of the trial court’s handling of a bail application, terming its approach as reflective of a “copy-paste syndrome.”
A Single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, observed: “While considering the bail application of a person who is in custody, a Court is expected to be alive to the fact that it is dealing with the life and liberty of an individual. Even a single day’s delay in grant of bail to a person who is otherwise entitled to it amounts to violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty.” In furtherance, the court granted bail to Umar Bashir Khan, accused in a 2018 case involving attempted rape.
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Sections 451, 376/511, 354, and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The prosecutrix alleged that on December 5–6, 2018, the petitioner/ accused trespassed into her house, assaulted her, attempted sexual assault, and issued threats. These claims were reiterated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and a chargesheet followed in November 2021.
The petitioner, already in custody under another FIR involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, applied for bail in July 2024 following his release on bail in the NDPS case. However, the trial court denied the application in September 2024, framing its decision on grounds unrelated to the case. The trial court, allegedly, assumed a narrative as if the petitioner was facing the charge of rape and not one of attempt to rape.
The High Court highlighted the trial court's glaring lapses, noting that the denial order relied on facts from an entirely different case. The court remarked: “from a perusal of the order passed by the trial court on 02.09.2024 as a whole, it appears that the said court has decided the bail application of the petitioner on the basis of facts of some other case. This clearly reflects absolute non-application of mind and casual approach on the part of the trial court. It is unimaginable that an officer of the level of a Sessions Judge would approach the bail application of a person, who is in incarceration, in such a casual manner.”
The court further found that the prosecutrix, in her October 2024 testimony, had resiled from her earlier allegations, attributing the incident to a family dispute and clarifying that no sexual assault occurred. The court emphasised that such contradiction cast reasonable doubt on the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged attempt to rape.
“In the present case, had the learned trial court taken pains to go through the contents of the challan filed against the petitioner and the charge framed against him by the same very trial court, perhaps the petitioner would have been saved from the agony of languishing in jail for all these months and also from approaching the High Court by way of the present application. The manner in which the learned trial court has decided the bail application of the petitioner leaves much to be desired,” the court noted.
Resultantly, granting the petitioner bail, the High Court directed that criminal courts within its jurisdiction must “remain sensitive and careful while dealing with bail applications and avoid the copy paste syndrome.”
Cause Title: Umar Bashir Khan v. UT of J&K & Others [Bail App No.104/2024]
Please Login or Register
