The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to a murder accused who had been in custody for over 9 years, holding that prolonged detention tilts the balance in favour of liberty under Article 21.

The Court noted that several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, indicating further delay in the trial. It emphasised that continued detention without timely trial violates the right to a speedy trial.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail.

It also noted inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and granted bail subject to conditions.

[Bhopinder Singh v. State of J&K]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that mere abuse of a person belonging to SC/ST or simply uttering a caste name does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court clarified that, under Section 3(1)(s), the abuse must be by the caste name and in a place within public view to attract liability.

It also emphasised that the intent to humiliate on the basis of caste is a crucial element.

Finding no such prima facie evidence in the case, the Court held that the bar on anticipatory bail would not apply and granted relief to the accused.

[Santosha Devi v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently clarified that a juvenile in conflict with law cannot claim bail as a matter of right under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The Court held that while the Act generally mandates bail, the proviso to Section 12 allows for denial if the release would defeat the ends of justice or expose the minor to danger.

The Court dismissed a bail plea from a 19-year-old (16 at the time of the offence) accused of sharing photographs of security installations with Pakistani handlers.

Observing that such heinous offences against national integrity outweighs personal liberty.

[Anjum Mehmood v. U.T of J&K]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the Government of India to bring back a youth who was forcibly deported to Pakistan, stressing that human values and rights are above borders.

The Court noted that the young man had lived in India for most of his life and had pending applications for visa extension and citizenship.

It found that the deportation was carried out without properly considering his situation.

Emphasising humanitarian concerns, the Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to facilitate his return within a fixed time so he can pursue his legal rights in India.

[Sajjad Ahmed v. UOI & Ors.]

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed an order of the Collector rejecting landowners’ request for a reference under Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 in a land acquisition dispute in Pahalgam.

The Court found that authorities failed to prove that the landowners were informed about the acquisition award or paid compensation.

It was observed that the right to seek a reference challenging compensation becomes meaningful only after the landowner has knowledge of the award and receives payment.

Calling the Collector’s order “grossly misconceived and misplaced,” the Court directed authorities to treat the application as valid and forward it to the Principal District Judge, Anantnag.

[Ghulam Mohammad Rah & Ors v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that falsely branding an individual as having links with terrorists or acting as an overground worker is ex facie defamatory as it lowers their reputation in society.

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that while media houses enjoy freedom of speech, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation laws.

The Court refused to quash proceedings against the newspaper's editor, noting the statutory presumption of responsibility for published content.

However, the court quashed the case against the owner, stating there was no evidence of his direct involvement in selecting the specific defamatory article.

[Sanjay Gupta & Anr. v. Prem Kumar]

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh initiated a suo motu investigation into vulturish practices where young girls are allegedly lured into marriage traps by older men.

The Court raised these concerns while hearing a plea by a 19-year-old seeking protection for her marriage to a 46-year-old married man.

Suspecting a criminal racket involving self-proclaimed religious preachers and sorcerers (tantriks), the Court appointed an amicus curiae and sought a senior woman IPS officer to lead an inquiry.

Emphasizing that such practices in rural areas cannot be ignored, ensuring the girl was restored to her mother’s custody for her safety.

[Sania Nazir & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expressed serious concern over litigants using unauthorized photocopies of case documents instead of obtaining certified copies through legal procedures.

The Court observed that such practices indicate unfair means of procuring documents from trial court records. Directing the Registrar General to issue strict instructions to all presiding officers across the Union Territories to curb this trend.

The Court warned that if future petitions contain uncertified photocopies from court files, the court may seek formal explanations from both the concerned clerks and the presiding judges.

The order emphasizes maintaining the integrity of judicial records.

[Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh & Ors. v. Qamar Un Nisa & Anr.]

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that courts must explain their reasons when granting bail in serious or heinous criminal cases instead of issuing mechanical orders without justification.

The Court stressed that bail decisions must consider the seriousness of the crime, the evidence, and whether the accused could influence witnesses or the trial.

In this case involving murder and related charges, the High Court rejected the bail plea and reminded the trial court to avoid routine unnecessary adjournments and to ensure a speedy trial with proper judicial reasoning.

[Murad Ali & Ors v. UT Of J&K]

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to 21-year-old Shabnam Akhter, arrested in 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after police recovered cash allegedly linked to terror funding.

A Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar held that merely keeping cash handed over by her husband, accused of links with Lashkar-e-Taiba, did not prima facie establish intent to fund terrorism.

Noting her over three-year incarceration and lack of direct evidence, the Court granted bail with conditions, leaving intent to be tested at trial.

[Shabnam Akhter v. UT Of J&K]

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals in the 23-year-old death case of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyusha, ruling out allegations of murder and rape.

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence established death by poisoning. The Court noted that Prathyusha and her boyfriend, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, had consumed poison amid opposition to their relationship, though Reddy survived.

Rejecting the defence of accidental intake, the Court found Reddy guilty of abetment to suicide for procuring the poison and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

It also termed the postmortem conducted by Dr. Muni Swamy unprofessional.

[Gudipalli Siddharta Reddy v. State (C.B.I.)]

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that statements and consent given by advocates, acting as authorised agents, are binding on the parties and operate as estoppel.

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a consent-based remand order passed by the Revisional Authority in a land partition dispute under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act.

It observed that once an order is passed with counsel’s consent, it cannot be questioned later unless there is fraud, coercion, or lack of jurisdiction.

Finding no such grounds, the Court vacated the interim stay and allowed proceedings to continue.

[Sikander Sharma v. Addl Commissioner Jammu & Ors.]

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted protection to a married couple who alleged threats from relatives after marrying against their families’ wishes.

The Court observed that when two adults choose each other as life partners, their decision reflects their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.

It said that obstructing personal choice strikes at the core of dignity and that consent of family, clan, or community is not required once adults marry of their free will.

Holding that the State is obligated to protect life and liberty, the Court directed authorities to ensure the couple’s safety.