early times report
Jammu, Dec 22: In a much publicized case of attach on SI Nitin Khajuria, the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma, has rejected the bail application of Narinder Sharma in FIR No. 158/2025 of Police Station Bakshi Nagar, holding that the allegations pertain to a heinous, life-threatening assault on a serving police officer and that granting bail would send a wrong signal to society, besides raising the likelihood of the accused absconding or repeating offences.
According to the police version placed before the court, the case stems from an incident of December 14, 2025, in which injured SI Nitin Khajuria stated that he was attacked by four assailants who arrived in a black Mahindra Thar, stopped him while he was on his motorcycle, dragged him near a temple at Gurha Morh and repeatedly assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon (toka), causing serious injuries. The prosecution claimed the incident was backed by CCTV footage from the locality and witness statements, and that the weapon was recovered from the Thar vehicle, which was seized during investigation.
The order records that two co-accused were arrested on December 17, 2025, while Narinder Sharma was apprehended on December 18, 2025 in a separate case with a banned heroin-like substance, leading to registration of FIR No. 159/2025 under the NDPS Act. His custody was later changed and he was formally arrested in the present Arms/BNS case on December 23, 2025, and is presently in judicial custody. The police also flagged multiple previous FIRs registered against him under NDPS, BNS and Arms Act provisions.
While the defence argued that Sharma’s name did not figure in the initial report and that he was implicated after CCTV was viewed, also raising the issue of non-compliance of arrest grounds under Sections 47 & 48 BNSS and citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court noted that the case diary reflected issuance of notice under Section 48 BNSS and held that even if any defect existed, it would not automatically entitle the accused to bail. The court also observed that “parity” with other accused—if any—cannot be claimed before a of different jurisdiction.
In its observations, the court reiterated that bail in non-bailable offences is a matter of judicial discretion, and after weighing factors like gravity of allegations, prima facie material, antecedents, and risk to the trial process, concluded that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail. The application was accordingly dismissed on January 22, 2026. (JNF)
|
