Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:745 vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 6 March, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:745
12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 344/2025
Uploaded on: 10.03.2026
Suresh Kumar
....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Vikram Arora, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and Anr.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vivek Mattoo, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
06.03.2026
1. The petitioner figures as an accused in charge-sheet titled “UT of J&K vs.
Suresh Kumar” pending before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba
(for short “Trial Court”) and is seeking bail in the above mentioned charge-
sheet arising out of FIR No. 173/2022 dated 11.12.2022 under Section 376
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as the
petitioner and the victim intended to marry but her parents were against the
Bail App No. 34 Page 1 of 3
2026:JKLHC-JMU:745
said marriage. It is further contended that there is a serious dispute with
regard to the age of the victim.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the response stating therein
that the petitioner is involved in commission of heinous offence of rape with
a minor and, as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are contradictions in the
evidence of the witnesses recorded before the learned trial Court. He further
submits that there is a serious dispute with regard to the age of the
prosecutrix as in the register maintained by the Chowkidar of the concerned
village, the date of birth of the victim has been recorded as 06.10.2003.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
6. The record reveals that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence and the
statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and she has not turned hostile.
The contention raised by the petitioner that there are serious contradictions
between the statements made by the prosecutrix as well as her parents cannot
be appreciated while considering the application for grant of bail (see.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42).
7. The next contention of the petitioner is that there is a serious dispute with
regard to the age of the prosecutrix as in the record maintained by the
Chowkidar concerned, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded
as 06.10.2003. It is further contended that the date of birth certificate issued
by the school authority has not been issued in accordance with law. This
contention cannot be appreciated at this stage, more particularly, when the
statement of PW-10 has not yet been recorded.
Bail App No. 34 Page 2 of 3
2026:JKLHC-JMU:745
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage
no ground is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court for grant of
bail after the statement of PW-10 is recorded.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
06.03.2026
Neha-I
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
Bail App No. 34 Page 3 of 3