The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has turned down a regular bail plea filed by Kewal Krishan, a 57-year-old resident of Rajouri, who is facing charges in connection with an alleged attack on two young men in June 2026. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who heard the matter, dismissed the application on September 1, 2026, holding that the circumstances did not warrant his release at this stage.
Background of the Case
The case relates to FIR No. 314 of 2026, registered at Police Station Rajouri under Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, two victims - Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi - were intercepted on June 12, 2026, at around 9:20 p.m. while returning from their shop and were allegedly assaulted with hockey sticks and sharp-edged weapons, including a "Toka." Kewal Krishan was taken into custody on June 15, 2026, and has remained in jail since. His earlier bail plea before the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, was rejected on July 11, 2026, mainly because the injured were still hospitalised at Ludhiana.
His counsel, senior advocate Sunil Sethi, argued that both injured persons had since been discharged and that the ground on which bail was earlier refused no longer existed. It was also submitted that CCTV footage from Krishan's petrol pump showed his presence there at the time of the incident, and that no specific overt act was attributed to him.
The complainant, Neeraj Sharma - father of one victim and uncle of the other - was allowed to be impleaded as a party. His counsel, senior advocate Aseem Sawhney, opposed bail, pointing to an earlier attack on Nikhil Bakshi two months prior involving some of the same accused, and alleged that the applicant had concealed a third FIR against him while claiming under oath that only two cases existed.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that the investigation was still at an early stage, with five accused persons absconding and the statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi yet to be recorded. It observed:
"The alleged non-disclosure of FIR No. 35/2024 in the bail application also assumes significance... What remains material is that the bail application did not contain a complete disclosure of the criminal cases stated by the Investigating Agency to be pending against the applicant."
The judgment also referred to the applicant's standing as a former Sarpanch, noting that his release could create "a reasonable apprehension that he may interfere with the ongoing investigation, tamper with the evidence, or influence and intimidate the witnesses."
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., the Court emphasised that antecedents and the gravity of allegations cannot be brushed aside merely because personal liberty is a fundamental right.
Decision
The Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for regular bail and dismissed the application, while clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail plea and would not affect the trial court's independent assessment of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Kewal Krishan vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr.
Case Number: Bail App No. 147/2026
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Decision Date: September 1, 2026 (Pronounced); Uploaded September 2, 2026
-300x169.webp)
