Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Raman Kumar Age 27 Years vs Ut Of J&K Through Incharge Police … on 28 April, 2026
Sr. No. 04
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No.02/2026
Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2026
Date of uploading: 28.04.2026
Date
CR
Raman Kumar Age 27 years
S/o Roop Lal
R/o Village Mandyal, Tehsil
Hiranagar District Kathua, ...Applicant(s)
presently lodged at District Jail
Kathua
Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
Vs
01. UT of J&K through Incharge Police Station Ramgarh
02. Madhu Devi W/o Lt. Gopal Chand
R/o Village Chak Salarian, Tehsil Ramgarh,
District Samba, mother of Ms. "X".
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Visha Bharti, Dy.AG with
Mr. Vivek Mattoo, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
28.04.2026 (ORAL)
01. Applicant has approached this Court for bail, after his plea for a
similar relief, in terms of order dated 12.12.2025, passed by learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Samba [“the trial Court”], came to be
declined.
02. As factual matrix of the prosecution case would unfurl, on
25.04.2022, a written application came to be preferred by the
complainant (name withheld) in Police Station, Ramgarh alleging
inter alia that one Raman Kumar, the petitioner, kidnapped her
youngest daughter, took her to Mansar area and raped her. The
complainant further alleged that it was revealed by her daughter that
accused lured her, forcibly took her to Mansar hotel and raped her by
showing nude videos from his phone. Her daughter was a minor of 17
years of age. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.34/2022 for
offences under Sections 376/363/354-A/506 IPC read with 3/4
POCSO Act came to be registered. The investigation culminated in
the presentation of chargesheet in the trial Court.
03. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the application, it is
pertinent to note that applicant approached this Court for the
quashment of charge under Sections 3/4 POCSO Act and his
consequent release on bail, by way of CRM(M) No.498/2025 along
with Bail App No.162/2025, and this Court vide order dated
17.10.2025, while dropping the charge under Sections 3/4 POCSO
Act directed the applicant to approach the trial Court with a fresh bail
plea. Accordingly, the applicant approached the trial Court and as
stated it did not find favour with the trial Court primarily on the
ground of gravity of the charge.
04. Applicant is aggrieved of the observation of learned trial Court
primarily on the ground that since charge under the POCSO Act
stands dropped by this Court and statements of the prosecutrix and
her family members stand recorded, his incarceration shall not serve
any purpose of the prosecution.
Page No.2
Bail App No.02/2026
05. The plea has been opposed on the other side by the respondents,
predominantly on the ground of seriousness of accusations and
severity of the punishment.
06. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the
record.
07. Personal liberty of a citizen is too precious a value of our
constitutional framework recognized under Article 21. Courts are
required to take cognizance of the fact that liberty of an individual,
whose involvement is to be established in a full dressed trial is not
dealt with lightly, because it is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Seriousness of
charge, no doubt, is a material consideration in a bail plea but that
cannot be the only factor to be taken into consideration, because if it
is reckoned as the only basis, then it may amount to recalibration of
scales of justice.
08. Learned counsel for the respondents in CRM(M) No.498/2025 had
fairly conceded that as per own admission of the prosecutrix, she had
attained majority at the time of commission of offence on 13.04.2022.
Pertinently, on this concession of the official respondents, the
quashment petition came to be allowed and charge under Sections 3/4
POCSO Act came to be dropped.
09. Admitted position of fact on record is that applicant came to be
arrested on 26.04.2022, i.e. about 04 years back. The prosecutrix, her
mother and sister stand examined by the trial Court. It is manifest
from the pace with which trial is going on that examination of
Page No.3
Bail App No.02/2026
remaining prosecution witnesses is likely to take a considerable time
and since material witnesses of the prosecution stand examined,
further incarceration of the applicant shall not serve any purpose of
the prosecution.
10. Thus considered, present application is allowed and applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a surety bond to the
tune of ₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and a bond
of personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of
Superintendent of the concerned jail, subject, however to the
following conditions that:
i. he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court without prior permission;
ii. he shall attend the trial court in accordance with the
conditions of the bail bonds and shall remain
punctual;
iii. he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused; andiv. he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the trial Court or
tamper with the evidence.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
28.04.2026
EvaWhether the judgment is speaking or not? Yes/No.
Whether the judgment is reportable or not? Yes/NoPage No.4
Bail App No.02/2026