The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has set aside the conviction of Habibullah Kumar in a 2009 bribery trap case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the initial demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment on August 21, 2026, allowing Kumar’s criminal appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Anantnag.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed before the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, in September 2009. The complainant, a Helper in the Block Development Office at Larkipora Shahabad, alleged that Kumar, who was working as Incharge Establishment, had demanded Rs.300 each from six Helpers for preparing arrears bills following their in-situ promotion.
A trap was subsequently laid. The prosecution alleged that Rs.1,800 in marked currency was handed over to Kumar during the trap and later recovered from the back pocket of his trousers. His hands and trouser pocket were also subjected to sodium carbonate tests, which reportedly turned pink.
The trial court convicted Kumar under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.21,000.
High Court Examination
The High Court closely examined the evidence concerning the alleged demand. Justice Dhar noted that the five employees on whose behalf the complainant claimed to have collected the money did not support that version. They stated that they had neither contributed money nor received any demand from Kumar.
The Court also found that the complainant had contradicted his own complaint regarding collection of Rs.300 from the other employees. The Court considered this a major contradiction concerning the alleged initial demand.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court stressed the importance of independent verification of an alleged demand before a trap is conducted.
“It seems that the Trap Laying Officer has not made any effort to verify the factum of initial demand of bribe.”
The Court further noted that evidence on record indicated prior discord between the complainant and Kumar, including disputes concerning the complainant’s brother and a reported land dispute.
Shadow Witness Evidence
The Court also examined the testimony of the shadow witness. He had remained outside Kumar’s room and admitted that he did not actually see the exchange of money or hear what the two men were discussing inside.
The High Court therefore found that the complainant’s account of the alleged demand and acceptance was not sufficiently corroborated. It held that mere recovery of the trap money, in the circumstances of the case, could not by itself establish the alleged criminal misconduct.
Decision
The High Court also found several inconsistencies in the trial court’s reasoning, including its treatment of the shadow witness’s evidence and the significance of the absence of proof regarding the initial demand.
Justice Dhar held that once the prosecution failed to establish the initial demand beyond reasonable doubt, the subsequent trap proceedings could not sustain the conviction.
“The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is, therefore, not sustainable in law.”
The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment, dismissed the charge sheet against Kumar and acquitted him of the charges.
His bail and surety bonds were also ordered to stand discharged.
Case Details
Case Title: Habibullah Kumar v. UT of J&K
Case Number: CrlA(S) No.11/2025
Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)