Copy-Paste Syndrome | J&K High Court Slams Trial Court For Casual Approach To Bail Cases

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir criticized the trial court’s handling of a bail application, labeling it as indicative of a “copy-paste syndrome.” Justice Dhar underscored that even minor delays in bail violate personal liberty. The High Court granted bail to Umar Bashir Khan after identifying significant errors in the trial court’s decision, emphasizing judicial diligence.

Srinagar: Emphasising the critical role of judicial diligence, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly criticised the trial court’s handling of a bail application, describing its approach as symptomatic of a “copy-paste syndrome.” The court’s sharp observations serve as a call for precision and mindfulness in cases involving personal liberty.

A single judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:

“While considering the bail application of a person who is in custody, a Court is expected to be alive to the fact that it is dealing with the life and liberty of an individual. Even a single day’s delay in grant of bail to a person who is otherwise entitled to it amounts to violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty.”

This pronouncement came as the High Court granted bail to Umar Bashir Khan, who was accused in a 2018 case involving attempted rape. Justice Dhar’s comments underline the judiciary’s responsibility to protect fundamental rights and highlight the need for meticulous handling of bail applications.

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Sections 451, 376/511, 354, and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). According to the prosecutrix, on December 5–6, 2018, the accused trespassed into her home, assaulted her, attempted sexual assault, and issued threats. These allegations were substantiated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to a chargesheet in November 2021.

In July 2024, Khan, who had already been in custody under another FIR related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, sought bail after securing release in the NDPS case. However, his application was rejected by the trial court in September 2024, citing reasons unrelated to the case at hand. The trial court’s decision, as later revealed, was flawed and based on facts pertaining to a different case entirely.

The High Court was unambiguous in its criticism of the trial court’s conduct. It noted glaring lapses, stating:

“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. 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 of a person, who is in incarceration, in such a casual manner.”

The High Court further pointed out that the prosecutrix, in her October 2024 testimony, had contradicted her earlier statements, attributing the incident to a family dispute and denying any sexual assault. This testimony cast reasonable doubt on the accused’s involvement in the alleged crime.

Justice Dhar remarked:

“In the present case, had the learned trial court taken pains to go through the contents of the challan filed against the petitioner and the charge framed against him by the same very trial court, perhaps the petitioner would have been saved from the agony of languishing in jail for all these months and also from approaching the High Court by way of the present application. The manner in which the learned trial court has decided the bail application of the petitioner leaves much to be desired.”

Granting bail to the accused, the High Court issued a directive for criminal courts within its jurisdiction to exercise caution and sensitivity while dealing with bail applications.