Srinagar, August 2: In a significant order passed on Saturday, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, Mr. Aadil Mushtaq Ahmad, dismissed the bail application of Khalid Rafiq Khan, son of Mohd Rafeeq Khan, Resident of Kadipora, Anantnag, accused in FIR No. 182/2025 under Sections 69 and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), registered at Police Station Budgam (P/P Humhama). The court held that granting bail at this stage would seriously impair the ongoing investigation and erode public faith in the criminal justice process.
The accused was represented by Advocate Aabid Banday, while Chief Prosecuting Officer Mr. Mohd Latief opposed the bail with strong legal submissions, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and its implications on the rule of law. The prosecution argued that premature release of the accused would embolden attempts to disrupt the investigative process and send a wrong signal to society.
Appearing for the victim, Advocate Shahzada Saleem also registered strong objections, stating that even though the accused hails from a different locality, he is in a position to influence or intimidate key witnesses through indirect means or third-party pressure, thereby endangering the integrity of the trial. The court gave serious consideration to this apprehension.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Praladh Singh v. NCT of Delhi, the court reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21, though fundamental, is not inviolable, especially where the nature of the alleged offence is heinous and the investigation is in a crucial phase. The court further stressed that bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in cases involving serious allegations, where public confidence in judicial fairness is at stake.
Noting the absence of any exceptional or mitigating circumstances, the court held that the accused had failed to make out a case for bail. It also underscored that the presumption of innocence is preserved throughout the trial, and rejecting bail at the investigative stage does not violate constitutional safeguards.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail application, directing that a copy of the order be made available to the accused free of cost
