HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bail App No. 65/2026 Bail App No. 84/2026 Rahul Kumar …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Khajuria, Advocate (in Bail App No. 65/2026) Mr. Kamal Mangotra, Advocate (in Bail App No. 84/2026) vs UT of J&K .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 22.06.2026 1. The petitioners had earlier applied for grant of bail at a stage when the matter was under investigation, however, their prayer for bail was declined by the trial Court. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that the charge-sheet has since been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid stress that charge under Section 111 BNS is not made out because there was no prior history of the petitioners’ being involved in any crime or any FIR has been registered against them. 2. It appears that the bail application was dismissed prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, but now, the trial Court is seized of the matter which is at the charge/discharge. So, petitioners have all the liberty to project their case that offence under Section 111 BNS is not made out. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed and there is change in Serial No. 53 & 58 2 Bail App No. 65/2026 Bail App No. 84/2026 circumstance, so instead of pursuing these applications he would seek leave to move to the trial Court afresh for their release on bail. 3. Given the aforesaid submissions, these two petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach afresh before the trial Court for consideration of their bail pleas in accordance with law. (Sanjay Parihar) Judge Jammu 22.06.2026 Vishal Sharma