The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has underscored the importance of judicial sensitivity and meticulousness in handling bail applications.
Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasized that courts must steer clear of the “copy-paste syndrome” that has crept into judicial proceedings, warning that such practices risk undermining individuals’ fundamental rights.
These observations were made in a case involving Umar Bashir Khan, who sought bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 451, 376/511, 354, and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Khan faced allegations of trespassing into the prosecutrix’s house, assaulting her, attempting sexual assault, and issuing life threats.
The prosecutrix had initially lodged a complaint in December 2018, alleging that, on the night of December 5–6, the petitioner entered her home, attacked her, attempted to sexually assault her, and threatened her life. The police registered an FIR, recorded her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, and filed a chargesheet in 2021, citing offenses under the stated sections.
While the trial proceeded, Khan remained in custody for another FIR under the NDPS Act. After his release in that case, he applied for bail in this matter, which was denied by the trial court in September 2024. The denial relied on an incorrect narrative, alleging sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage—an assertion unrelated to the case.
Khan’s counsel argued that the trial court had dismissed the bail application mechanically, without proper consideration of the case facts or evidence. It was pointed out that the prosecutrix, during her testimony, had recanted her earlier claims, stating the incident arose from a family dispute.
Upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Dhar criticized the trial court for its approach, noting that the court’s reasoning was based on an unrelated case’s facts.
Justice Dhar remarked:
“From a perusal of the afore-quoted observations of the trial court and, in fact, from a perusal of the order passed by the trial court on 02.09.2024 as a whole, it appears that the said court has decided the bail application of the petitioner on the basis of facts of some other case.”
The court further observed:
“This clearly reflects absolute non-application of mind and casual approach on the part of the trial court. It is unimaginable that an officer of the level of a Sessions Judge would approach the bail application… in such a casual manner.”
The High Court highlighted that the prosecutrix’s court testimony contradicted her initial allegations, admitting the incident stemmed from a family dispute and denying any sexual assault. This, Justice Dhar noted, cast significant doubt on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in attempted rape.
The judgment stressed the need for judicial diligence, stating:
“Even a single day’s delay in granting bail to a person who is otherwise entitled to it amounts to violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty.”
Granting bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000, the High Court issued broader guidance to lower courts. Justice Dhar urged subordinate courts to exercise caution and avoid reliance on copy-paste practices in bail rulings.
“It is impressed upon the criminal courts to remain sensitive and careful while dealing with bail applications and avoid the copy-paste syndrome which, of late, has crept in the functioning of the courts,” the judgment concluded.
Case Title: Umar Bashir Khan Vs UT of J&K
