Successive bail plea fails as HC finds no material change in circumstances

Rajouri assault case

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Sept 2: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a successive bail application cannot succeed merely by reiterating grounds already considered by a lower court and that an accused must demonstrate a material change in factual or legal circumstances warranting a different conclusion.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the regular bail plea of 57-year-old Kewal Krishan of Rajouri, observed that although a successive bail application is maintainable, the Court must examine the reasons for rejection of the earlier plea and ascertain whether any substantial change in circumstances has actually occurred.

The Court made the observations while dismissing bail application in connection with FIR No. 314/2026 registered at Police Station Rajouri under Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The applicant had earlier approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, seeking regular bail, but his plea was rejected on July 11, 2026, primarily because the injured persons were undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ludhiana.

Before the High Court, it was argued that both injured persons, Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi, had since been discharged, thereby removing the circumstance that had weighed with the Sessions Court. The applicant also claimed false implication, contending that the allegations against him were general, vague and omnibus and that no specific overt act had been attributed to him.

The defence further relied upon CCTV footage from the applicant’s petrol pump, claiming that it showed him continuously present there when the alleged occurrence took place. It was also argued that no recovery had been effected from him and that the continued incarceration of an accused cannot become punitive in character.

However, Justice Nargal found that the claimed change in circumstances was insufficient. The latest status report showed that the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi was still to be recorded and his medical reports were awaited. Therefore, the circumstances which had earlier weighed against the grant of bail could not be said to have completely lost their relevance.

The Court also noted that the investigation was still at a nascent stage. Five accused persons were absconding, the statement of one injured person remained pending and the alleged weapons had not yet been recovered. At the same time, the investigating agency had seized the vehicle allegedly used in the occurrence and collected witness statements and Call Detail Records.

The prosecution case alleged that the victims were intercepted while returning from their shop and subjected to a concerted assault by several persons using hockey sticks, sharp-edged weapons and other weapons, causing serious injuries. The complainant also alleged that about two months earlier Nikhil Bakshi had been attacked by 15-16 persons, including some co-accused in the present case, and that the victims had thereafter received threats and warnings of dire consequences.

Another factor that weighed against Kewal Krishan was the incomplete disclosure of his criminal antecedents in the bail application.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment, the High Court underscored the obligation of a bail applicant to make full and candid disclosure of material particulars, including criminal antecedents.

The Court also relied upon settled Supreme Court parameters requiring consideration of the prima facie case, gravity of accusations, severity of punishment, possibility of absconding, criminal antecedents, likelihood of repetition of offence and apprehension of witnesses being influenced or evidence being tampered with.

On the CCTV claim, the Court said its evidentiary value, authenticity, continuity and ultimate effect on the prosecution case would require appreciation of the entire evidence and were best left for trial.

Justice Nargal concluded that the gravity of the alleged pre-planned assault, prima facie material collected during investigation, criminal antecedents, incomplete investigation, absconding co-accused and possibility of interference with witnesses and evidence cumulatively outweighed the considerations advanced by the applicant.

The bail application was accordingly dismissed.