Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mudasir Nazir Khan And Ors vs Union Territory Through Police Station … on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
90
Suppl
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App 22/2025.
MUDASIR NAZIR KHAN AND ORS.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abid Hamid Pandit, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION BUDGAM.
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy AG with
Mr. Nobahar Khan, AC.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
01.08.2025
01. The petitioners have moved this application for grant of bail in
anticipation of his arrest in FIR No. 30/2024 for offences under
Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 336 & 427 IPC with Police Station,
Budgam.
02. As per the allegations made in the FIR, there is a land dispute
between the petitioners and the complainant party and on account
of this, on 26.01.2024, the petitioners are alleged to have launched
an attack with lathies upon the complainant party with an intention
to kill them. As a result of this attack Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat,
Ali Mohammad Bhat and Hajara Begam sustained injuries and they
were taken to the hospital for treatment.
03.It seems that the petitioners had approached the Court of learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam with an application for grant of
anticipatory bail. However, the said application came to be
dismissed by the said Court in terms of Order dated 24.01.2025, on
the ground that there is an apprehension that in case the
petitioners are admitted to bail, they may try to pressurize and
win over the prosecution witness and that they may also jump
over the bail.
04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
05.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the FIR with a view to
wreak vengeance upon them because admittedly there is a civil
dispute going on between the petitioners and the complainant
party. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that
the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the Investigating
Agency in case they are admitted to bail. The learned counsel
contends that the fact that Investigating Agency has not taken any
steps for effecting arrest of the petitioners despite they being
available at all times since the date of registration of FIR on
26.01.2024, shows that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is not needed. He has further contended that even in
the objections filed by the respondents, there is no mention that
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is needed.
06. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
petitioners are involved in serious offences and as such, they
should not be enlarged on bail, particularly when the Court of first
instance has already opined that in case the petitioners are
granted bail, they are likely to influence the prosecution
witnesses.
07. There appears to be prima facie merit in the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners as narrated hereinbefore,
as such a case for grant of interim anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is made out at this stage.
08. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the
petitioners in the aforesaid FIR, they shall be admitted to interim
anticipatory bail till next date of hearing subject to the following
conditions:
1. That they shall furnish bail bonds in the amount of
Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each to the
satisfaction of Investigating Officers concerned.
2. That they shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when required for purposes of
investigation.
3. That they shall not leave the territorial limits of
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without
prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
4. That they shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
List this petition on 10th of September, 2025.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
01.08.2025
Bisma
[ad_1]
Source link