Srinagar, Sep 5: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of 57-year-old Rajouri resident Kewal Krishan in connection with a June 2026 attack case, observing that the investigation is still at an early stage and several crucial aspects remain pending.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the order in Bail App No. 147/2026. The order was pronounced on September 1 and uploaded on September 2. Krishan is lodged in District Jail, Rajouri, in connection with FIR No. 314/2026 registered at Police Station Rajouri on June 12 under Sections 109, 126(2) and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, besides Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.
The court noted that Krishan had earlier sought bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, but the plea was rejected on July 11 when the injured persons were still undergoing treatment at a Ludhiana hospital. The present petition was consequently treated as a successive bail application, requiring the accused to establish a material change in circumstances.
The defence argued that the subsequent discharge of injured persons Tushar Sharma and Nikhil Bakshi from the hospital constituted such a change. Counsel also claimed that Krishan was not present at the alleged scene around 9.20 pm on June 12 and was attending to his business at a petrol pump.
Reliance was placed on CCTV footage from the petrol pump, which, according to the defence, showed Krishan’s continuous presence there during the relevant period. It was also argued that no specific overt act had been attributed to him, no weapon had been recovered from his possession and his continued detention should not amount to pre-trial punishment.
The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the investigation remained incomplete. According to the status report, two accused, Kewal Kumar Sharma and Ujjwal Tara, had been arrested and were in judicial custody, while five others remained absconding.
The absconding accused were identified as Ritish Saryal, Aryan, Sahil Sharma, Arun Sharma alias Sanju Saryal and Suraj Sharma alias Happy Tara, all residents of Rajouri district.
Police informed the court that the alleged weapons used in the offence were yet to be recovered. The statement of injured Nikhil Bakshi had also not been recorded, while his medical reports were awaited. Investigators had seized the vehicle allegedly used in the incident and collected other evidence through witness statements and analysis of call detail records.
The complainant, Neeraj Sharma, father of one injured person and uncle of the other, was allowed to be impleaded as a respondent. He alleged that the victims were attacked as part of a pre-planned conspiracy after their path was blocked while they were returning from their shop.
The complainant also referred to an earlier alleged assault involving 15-16 persons, including some of the accused in the present case, for which FIR No. 181/2026 was registered at Police Station Rajouri. He further alleged that the victims had subsequently received threats.
The respondents also raised concerns over Krishan’s alleged criminal antecedents, referring to FIR Nos. 470/2012 and 486/2012 and FIR No. 35/2024. The latter was stated to be under investigation. While the complainant alleged that the 2024 FIR had not been disclosed in the bail application, the defence submitted that Krishan was unaware of its registration.
Justice Nargal held that the discharge of the injured persons from hospital, by itself, did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances, particularly when Bakshi’s statement remained pending and his medical reports had not been received.
The court further observed that five accused were still at large and the alleged weapons had not been recovered, indicating that the prosecution’s concerns could not be treated as merely speculative at the present stage.
Emphasising that a successive bail application must be considered in light of the reasons for rejection of the earlier plea, the High Court held that previously considered grounds could not justify a different conclusion without a material change in circumstances.
The court accordingly declined to grant regular bail to Kewal Krishan at this stage of the investigation.