Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohammad Lone vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 7 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.4
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:07.07.2026
Uploaded on: 07.07.2026
Whether the operative part or
full order is pronounced: Full
Bail App No.75/2026
GHULAM MOHAMMAD LONE ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Zahid Hussain Dar , Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
07.07.2026
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present
petition, has sought bail in a case arising out of FIR
No.258/2025 for offences under Section 64, 127(2), 351,
88, 61, 62, 127 (3), 89, 238, 239, 240, 5(3) of BNS, Section
4, 5(j)/6, 17, 19, 21 of POCSO Act registered with Police
Station, Shopian, which is stated to be pending before the
Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shopian
(hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”)
2) Briefly stated, as per the prosecution case, on
30.11.2025, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered by
Police Station, Shopian, on the basis of a report lodged by
father of the victim. It was alleged in the complaint lodged
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 1 of 11
by father of the victim that she was in friendship with co-
accused Falak Jan. In the first week of June of the said
year, the victim was invited by co-accused Falak Jan to her
home at Hermain Shopian where she was treated well by
accused Parveena and Falak Jan. It was alleged that during
this visit, the victim met accused Sudais Ahmad Lone as
also the petitioner herein, who happens to be the father of
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone. It was further stated that
thereafter the victim visited the house of the accused many
times and eventually on one day, when the victim visited
the house of the accused, she was led into a room where
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone was already present. It was
further alleged that the accused persons, acting in
connivance, closed the door from outside and accused
Sudais Ahmad Lone intimidated the victim and forcibly
committed rape upon her. After this incident, the victim
began to feel unwell and the family of the main accused,
suspecting pregnancy, took her for medical tests including
USG, which confirmed pregnancy of about 45 days. It was
further alleged that accused Sudais Ahmad Lone had made
false promise of marriage and simultaneously threatened to
commit suicide if the victim discloses the crime to anyone
and she was also being blackmailed by the accused.
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 2 of 11
3) In the report, it was further alleged that the victim was
taken to accused Dr. Zahid who performed a medical
procedure to terminate the pregnancy. After conducting the
procedure, the condition of the victim became critical. It is
further alleged that when the pregnancy of the victim was
aborted, the accused persons became hostile to her and
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone snatched her phone and
deleted all evidence including call recordings, text
messages, pictures etc. It was further alleged that victim
was later on allowed to go to Srinagar but was sternly
warned and threatened not to reveal anything to anyone.
4) On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No.258/2025 was
registered and investigation of the case was set into motion.
After completion of investigation offences under Section 61,
64, 89, 127(3), 238, 239, 240, 351, 3(5) of BNS, Section 4,
5(j)(ii)/6, 21 of POCSO Act were found established against
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone, offences under Section 61,
62, 89, 127(3), 238, 239, 240, 351 of BNS, Section 17, 19,
21 of POCSO Act were found established against the
petitioner herein as also against accused Parveena Akhter,
Falak Jan and Zahid Iqbal Shah, and the challan was laid
before the learned trial court. A perusal of the record of the
challan reveals that the case is pending for arguments on
framing of charges.
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 3 of 11
5) It appears that female accused, namely, Parveena
Akhter and Falak Jan, have been enlarged on anticipatory
bail by this Court in terms of order dated 06.03.2026 and
similarly, accused Zahid Iqbal Shah has also been enlarged
on regular bail by the trial court in terms of order dated
06.03.2026. However, the petitioner, who has been arrested
on 01.01.2026, has been declined bail by the learned trial
court vide order dated 03.04.2026. So far as the main
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone is concerned, he is still in
custody and he has not been granted bail so far.
6) During investigation of the case, the statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. In her
statement she has stated that she was friendly with one of
her relatives, namely, Falak. She has further stated that in
the month of July, 2025, accused Falak enticed her to
accompany her to her home. She was made to sleep in the
corridor with the mother of accused Falak, who happens to
be the sister of accused Sudais Ahmad Lone. In the
morning, when mother of the accused got up and went out
of the room, accused Sudais Ahmad Lone, bolted the room
from inside, gagged mouth of the victim and lowered her
trouser and thereafter committed rape upon her. When
main accused had completed the act of sexual intercourse
upon her, she told him that she would narrate everything
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 4 of 11
to his mother but he told her that he has taken her nude
photographs and if she narrates the occurrence to anyone,
it would bring disrepute to her. The victim further stated
that because of threat and intimidation, she did not narrate
the incident to anyone and proceeded to Srinagar. In the
meantime, family members of the main accused were in
constant contact with her because they were apprehending
that she may have got pregnant. She was being threatened
and intimidated by the family members of the main
accused.
7) She further stated that accused Zahid, who is a
doctor, took her to L. D. Hospital, Srinagar, and prepared a
fake prescription slip, whereafter the victim was subjected
to medical tests which showed that she was pregnant.
Thereafter accused Dr. Zahid compelled her to take
medicine for termination of pregnancy and for this purpose,
accused Sudais Ahmad Lone took her to Dr. Zahid to
Shopian District Hospital. The victim further stated that Dr.
Zahid threatened her in case she did not take the medicine.
Because of the threats extended by the main accused, she
took medicine, which result in bleeding to her. She was
given another kit of medicine which also led to her bleeding.
One Mohammad Iqbal, who is operating a medical shop,
advised her to take medicine through vagina but she
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 5 of 11
refused. At this juncture, the petitioner, who happens to be
father of Sudais Ahmad Lone and a police official, forced
her to take medicine through vagina. Thereafter she was
taken to hospital at Anantnag where she was subjected to
DNC. The victim further stated that accused Sudais Ahmad
Lone and his father, the petitioner herein, his sister
accused Falak, gave a beating to her and accused Sudais
again tried to commit rape upon her. She has also stated
that the petitioner abused her.
8) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that the
role attributed to him in the charge sheet is very limited in
nature, inasmuch as there is no allegation against him that
he has either connived with the commission of rape upon
the victim or that he has committed rape upon her. It has
been contended that the victim has made sweeping and
omnibus allegations against whole of the family of the main
accused just to rope them in the criminal case. It has also
been contended that even if it is assumed that the
allegations made in the charge sheet are correct, still then
role of the petitioner is confined only to the extent of
termination of pregnancy of the victim. Therefore, once
investigation of the case is complete, he cannot be refused
bail.
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 6 of 11
9) The respondent-State has filed objections to the bail
application, in which, after narrating the allegations made
in the challan against the petitioner and co-accused, it has
been contended that the offences alleged against the
petitioner are of an extremely grave and heinous nature
involving sexual assault of a minor girl, hence he does not
deserve the concession of bail. It has been contended that
there is material on record to show that the petitioner is
involved in the conspiracy to commit rape upon the victim
who is a minor girl aged 17 years, hence the bail application
deserves to be rejected.
10) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including record of the trial
court.
11) Before coming to the other aspects of the case, it is
necessary to deal with the contention of the respondent
that the instant bail application is not maintainable
because the earlier bail application of the petitioner, after
filing of the charge sheet, stands rejected by the trial court
and, as such, there is no change of circumstances.
12) The question that arises for consideration is whether
or not successive bail application will lie before this Court.
The law on this issue is very clear that if an earlier
application was rejected by an inferior court, the superior
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 7 of 11
court can always entertain the successive bail application.
In this behalf, I am supported by the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors
vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 which
has been followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State,(1987) 3 Crimes 363.
Thus, the rejection of a bail application by Sessions Court
does not operate as a bar for the High Court to entertain a
similar application under Section 439 Cr. P. C/483 BNSS
on the same facts and for the same offence.
13) Having held that the instant bail application is
maintainable, let us now proceed to deal with the merits of
the application. So far as the principles governing grant or
refusal of bail are concerned, the same have been
elucidated in a large number of judgments rendered by the
Supreme Court and this Court. The principles laid down in
these judicial precedents can be summarized as under:
(i) The gravity of the offence and the nature of of
the accusation including the frivolity of
punishment in a case of conviction;
(ii) The position and status of the accused vis-Ã -
vis the victim and the witnesses;
(iii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused tampering with
the evidence and/or witnesses and
obstructing the course of justice;
(v) The possibility of repetition of the offence;
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 8 of 11
(vi) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support
of the charge including frivolity of the charge;
(vii) Stage of the investigation;
(viii) Larger interest of the public or the State;
14) As per the charge sheet laid before the trial court,
offences under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act have
not been established against the petitioner herein, as such,
the provisions contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the said
act are not attracted to the case of the petitioner, against
whom offences under Section 17, 19, and 21 of the POCSO
Act have been found established. Thus, his case has to be
treated on a different footing than the case of main accused
Sudais Ahmad Lone, against whom offences under Section
4, 5(j)(ii)/6, 21 of the POCSO Act have also been found
established, thereby attracting the provisions contained in
Section 29 and 30 of the said Act.
15) With the aforesaid position in mind, let us now
analyse the facts of the present case. A cursory look at the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNS
would reveal that role of the petitioner herein is confined to
the termination of her pregnancy, inasmuch as, according
to the victim, the petitioner threatened her and made her to
taker medicine through her vagina when she had refused to
do so. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the
offence under Section 89 of BNS which carries punishment
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 9 of 11
of imprisonment for life or imprisonment of eitherdescription for a term which may extend to ten years. There
is no legal or statutory bar in granting bail to an accused
who has been charged for offence under Section 89 of BNS.
16) In the charge sheet it is alleged that the petitioner has
connived with the main accused who has committed rape
upon the victim. In this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently contended that there is hardly
any evidence or material on record to show that the
petitioner has connived with his son in commission of rape
upon the victim. He has submitted that it is highly
improbable that a father would aid and abet his son in
commission of rape. It has also been contended that a bare
perusal of the statement of the victim would reveal that the
petitioner has come on the scene only when the victim was
made to take medicine for termination of her pregnancy
through vagina, therefore, it cannot be stated that the
petitioner has connived in the commission of rape upon the
victim.
17) Without going into the merits of the aforesaid
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, lest
it may prejudice the case of either party before the trial
court, it does appear that there is a prima facie merit in the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 10 of 11
18) Apart from the above, investigation of the case is
complete. The petitioner, who is, admittedly, not the main
accused, has been in custody for the last more than six
months and the co-accused Zahid Iqbal Shah, whose role
is similar to that of the petitioner, has been enlarged on bail
by the learned trial court. In these circumstances, denying
concession of bail to the petitioner would amount to pre-
trial punishment upon him, which is impermissible in law.
19) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the
petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail
subject to the following conditions:
(i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount
of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;
(ii) That he shall appear before the learned trial court
on each and every date of hearing.
(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of
the learned trial court;
(iv) That he shall not intimidate or tamper with
prosecution witnesses/evidence.
20) The bail application shall stand disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar,
07.07.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No Bail App No. 75/2026 Page 11of 11
