Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/477/2021 of RENU BALA Vs INDU REKHA on 21 July 2026
No. 477/2021 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 477/2021 CrlM Nos. 1650/2021 & 1545/2021 Date of Pronouncement:-21.07.2026 Uploaded on:- 22.07.2026 Renu Bala, Age 25 years, W/O Late Ashwini Kumar, R/O Ward No. 1, Shaheedi Chowk, Kathua …..Petitioner(s)
1 CRM(M) No. 477/2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 477/2021
CrlM Nos. 1650/2021 &
1545/2021
Date of Pronouncement:-21.07.2026
Uploaded on:- 22.07.2026
Renu Bala, Age 25 years,
W/O Late Ashwini Kumar,
R/O Ward No. 1, Shaheedi Chowk,
Kathua
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
Vs
1. Indu Rekha, W/O Sh. Partap Singh.
2. Asha Rani, W/O Sh. Balak Ram.
3. Balak Ram, S/O Chuni Lal
All residents of Ward No. 2, Kathua.
4. UT of J&K Th. SHO,
Police Station, Kathua.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Advocate for R-1.
None for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks setting aside of the orders dated 28.07.2021, 29.07.2021 & 02.08.2021 passed in bail applications Nos. 61, 62 & 63 filed by the respondents before the Court of learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (T), Kathua on 24.07.2021 in case FIR No. 344/21, registered at Police Station, Kathua on 22.07.2021 under Section 306 IPC, whereby the learned Serial No. 19 Regular List
2 CRM(M) No. 477/2021 Magistrate admitted the accused to interim bail, allegedly arbitrarily and illegally on the very fourth, fifth & eighth days of their arrest.
02. Pursuant to notice, reply/objections are stated to have been filed by the respondents, controverting the assertions made in the petition. All the aforesaid impugned orders are stated to have been passed as interim bail orders, subject to objections from the other side.
03. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1 submits that the aforesaid impugned orders were stated to have been made absolute vide orders dated 12.08.2021 passed in two separate applications, which have been placed on record by the petitioner herself through CrlM No. 1650/2021. The orders, granting absolute bail, however, have neither been assailed nor this petition has been amended, so as to incorporate a challenge thereto.
04. In view of the petitioner having failed to challenge the subsequent orders, making the interim bail absolute, the petition on hand has been rendered infructuous and it appears that this has been the reason as to why there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Otherwise also, the respondent had been admitted to bail in the year 2021 and by now, their case would also have progressed.
05. The petition is, thus, disposed of having been rendered infructuous, alongwith connected application(s).
06. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU
21.07.2026
Ram Krishan
Ram Krishan 2026.07.22 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document