High Court denies bail in Udhampur Murder Case

14/10/2025

JAMMU, Oct 10: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has refused to grant bail to Tarun Sharma, accused in the alleged murder of Amit Gupta, observing that there exists a prima facie case supported by circumstantial evidence, forensic material, and a confessional statement linking the petitioner to the crime.
The order was pronou-nced by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal in Bail Application No. 187/2024, reserved on September 18 and pronounced on October 10, 2025.
The petitioner, Tarun Sharma (40), son of Dev Raj Sharma, resident of East Mand, Udhampur, presently lodged in District Jail Udhampur, had approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking bail in FIR No. 248/2023, registered at Police Station Rehmbal for offences under Section 302 of the IPC.
Sharma was represented by Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Mahajan and Mr. Sanzy Gupta, Advocates, while Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Govern-ment Advocate, appeared for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
According to the prosec-ution, the case originated from the suspicious death of Amit Gupta, resident of Shakti Nagar, Udhampur, on October 20, 2022. Initially, inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated, but following findings during the inquiry, a formal FIR for murder was registered against Tarun Sharma.
The prosecution alleged that both the deceased and the petitioner were drug users and had frequent communication. The deceased had allegedly paid Sharma ?10,000-?12,000 for procuring poppy straw, and a dispute over repayment led to the fatal incident.
It was further alleged that Sharma lured the deceased near a bridge under the pretext of giving medicine and pushed him into a nallah, causing his death. During custodial interrogation, Sharma allegedly confessed to the act.
The trial court had earlier rejected his bail plea on June 6, 2024.
Court's Observations
Justice Nargal observed that the court must exercise caution in granting bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) and Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980), the Court reiterated that the nature of accusation, gravity of offence, and likelihood of tampering with evidence must be key considerations.
The order noted:
"There exists sufficient material on record to justify the findings recorded by the Sessions Court… The call detail records and retrieved mobile messages indicate continuous communication between the petitioner and the deceased on the day of the incident."
It further observed:
"The recovery of articles from the petitioner's shop at his instance, corroborated by CDRs and post-mortem findings, strengthens the prosecution's case. The argument of delay in trial is factually and legally unsustainable."
The Court emphasized that no material change in circumstances had occurred since the previous bail rejection, stating:
"Any successive bail application must be founded on a material change in circumstance; in the absence of such change, the application is liable to be dismissed at the threshold."
Legal Reasoning
Justice Nargal cited a string of apex court rulings, including Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) and Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010), reiterating that bail should not be granted in cases where the "last seen" theory is corroborated by circumstantial and forensic evidence and where the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation.
He concluded:
"The seriousness of the charges under Section 302 IPC, the nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution including forensic material, call detail records, recovery memos, and the petitioner's own custodial disclosure all weigh heavily against the petitioner's plea for liberty."
Outcome
Finding "no merit" in the application, the Court dismissed the bail plea, observing that the trial was proceeding expeditiously with 18 out of 29 prosecution witnesses already examined.
"The trial is progressing meaningfully… Granting bail at this stage would not only be premature but may also impede proper completion of the trial," the Court concluded.
Case Title: Tarun Sharma v. Union Territory of J&K and Another
Coram: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Advocates:
" For Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vishal Mahajan and Mr. Sanzy Gupta, Advs.
" For Respondents: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
Order Date: October 10, 2025
Result: Bail Application Dismissed.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty