Murder over drug money dispute
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 13: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the bail plea of Tarun Sharma, a 40-year-old resident of Udhampur, accused of murdering his friend Amit Gupta allegedly over a monetary dispute linked to the purchase of poppy straw.
The bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime, and the stage of the ongoing trial did not justify the grant of bail.
The case stems from the death of Amit Gupta of Shakti Nagar, Udhampur, whose body was discovered under suspicious circumstances in a nallah near Prince Cappery, Mand on October 20, 2022. Initially, an inquest under Section 174 CrPC was initiated after the deceased’s Scooty (JK14D/4010) was found abandoned near a bridge.
However, following forensic examination and witness statements, the police converted it into a murder case (FIR No. 248/2023 under Section 302 IPC) naming Tarun Sharma as the accused.
According to the prosecution, the two men were close acquaintances and drug users. The deceased had allegedly paid Sharma Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000 for procuring poppy straw, which the accused failed to deliver or refund.
In his custodial confession, Sharma purportedly admitted to luring the victim to his shop on the pretext of giving medicine, taking him near the bridge, and pushing him into the nallah, leading to fatal head injuries. The post-mortem confirmed injuries consistent with the prosecution’s version.
The High Court noted that the prosecution had cited 29 witnesses, out of which 18 have already been examined, demonstrating that the trial is proceeding in a diligent and timely manner. The key last-seen witness, Paramjeet Singh, passed away before his testimony could be recorded, but his earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC. was held to retain evidentiary value.
The defence argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, that the last-seen theory was weak, and that there was no direct proof linking the accused to the crime.
However, the High court found the chain of evidence — including call detail records, recoveries made pursuant to the accused’s disclosure, and corroborating witness statements to be coherent, consistent, and prima facie credible.
Justice Nargal cited several Supreme Court precedents reiterating that in heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, bail must be granted only after careful scrutiny of evidence and public interest considerations.
“When there is prima facie material suggesting the involvement of the accused in a serious offence, bail may be denied to prevent the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses,” the High Court observed. The High Court further noted that there was no material delay in trial, rejecting the defence’s plea for bail on that ground. The order emphasized that 18 out of 29 witnesses have been examined, indicating that the prosecution was acting with due diligence.
The High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge Udhampur’s earlier order dated June 6, 2024, which had denied bail on similar grounds. Justice Nargal observed that there were no new facts, legal developments, or change in circumstances to justify reconsideration of bail, adding that successive bail pleas must be based on new or altered conditions, which were absent in this case.
Accordingly, High Court dismissed the bail application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
