Ajay Dubey vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 7 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Ajay Dubey vs Union Territory Of J&K & Anr on 7 July, 2026

    Author: Sindhu Sharma

    Bench: Sindhu Sharma

                                                                               2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989
    
    
    
                                                 Sr. No. 01
           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                           AT JAMMU
    
    Bail App No. 353/2025
    CrlM No. 2403/2025
                                                             Reserved on : 06.07.2026
                                                           Pronounced on : 07.07.2026
                                                            Uploaded on : 07.07.2026
    
    Ajay Dubey                                          .... Applicant/Applicant(s)
                        Through:-       Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate with
                                        Mr. Abid Khan and Mr. Mohd. Sher
                                        Khan, Advocates
                  V/s
    
    Union Territory of J&K & anr.                  .....Respondent/Non-applicant(s)
                        Through:-       Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy.AG
                                        alongwith I.O./Mr. Ankush Sharma, SI
                                        PS Gangyal.
    CORAM :      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                                      ORDER
    

    01. This bail application has been filed by the applicant under

    Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant

    SPONSORED

    of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.0095 dated 05.09.2025

    registered at Police Station, Gangyal for the offence under Section 376 of

    IPC.

    02. The complainant/respondent No. 2 had appeared in person before

    this Court but chose not to file response to this application, as such, this

    Court proceeded to hear this matter finally.

    03. The case of the prosecution is that FIR No. 0095/2025 was

    registered in the Police Station Gangyal on the complaint of respondent No.

    2 against the applicant. It is alleged that the complainant came in contact

    with the applicant through Facebook about one and a half year ago. The
    2

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    applicant called the complainant to his place on the pretext of a job and

    offered her soft drink to the complainant which was spiked and on

    consuming the same, the complainant fell unconscious and upon gaining

    conscious, found herself without clothes, which caused her extreme shame.

    The applicant taking the benefit of that committed rape upon her. The

    applicant told the complainant that he had clicked her photographs &

    Videos and would make the same viral in case she reported the incident to

    anybody. Thereafter, the applicant started blackmailing her into sexual

    favour and would call her to accompany him wherever he went. Thereafter

    the applicant kept abusing the complainant who has not reported this matter

    to anyone. In the month of October, 2024, the complainant visited Chandi

    Mata Temple, the applicant also came on spot and attempted to take the

    complainant with him against her wish. On her resistance, she was

    thrashed. The applicant thereafter abused her and threatened to spoil her

    life and is, thus, guilty of committing sexual assault upon her by employing

    deceitful means.

    04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

    been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is major woman of

    about 26 years. The relationship between the applicant and respondent No.

    2/victim was consensual in nature and continued till August, 2025. The

    applicant came in contact with the complainant in the year 2020 through

    Face book and thereafter, they started talking to each other and became

    good friends. The complainant told him that her husband has died and she

    is a single mother having a small girl child living in a rented

    accommodation. It is further submitted that the applicant informed
    3

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    respondent No. 2/complainant that his wife has left him and they are

    separated for the last more than 10 years. They both being adults entered

    into a consensual relationship and were living together in a rented

    accommodation in Model Town, Gangyal District Jammu. That after nearly

    02 years of the living relationship, the applicant came to know that the

    husband of the complainant was alive and in fact, there were some

    matrimonial disputes with the family. In the month of August, 2024, a

    summon was received from Court in Kathua wherein it transpired that the

    husband of respondent No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 9 of the

    Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the

    complainant. The said petition is still pending for adjudication before the

    Court of Additional District Judge, Kathua titled Narayan Kumar versus

    Pooja Devi. There is a specific averment in Section 9 of the petition that

    respondent No. 2 is living with a stranger. In order to cover up her

    relationship with the applicant that respondent No. 2 has moved a false and

    frivolous application on 05.09.2025 seeking registration of FIR.

    05. The applicant preferred an application for grant of anticipatory

    bail before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,

    Jammu and learned Presiding Officer vide his order dated 22.09.2025

    rejected the application for grant of bail.

    06. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and

    submitted that the applicant cannot claim bail as a matter of right as he is

    involved in heinous offence, besides enlarging him on bail will encourage

    the offenders. It is also stated that FIR No. 0095/2025 under Section 376 of

    IPC was registered in Police Station, Gangyal Jammu on complaint of
    4

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    respondent No.2 wife of Narayan Kumar, resident of at present Dayala

    Chak, Tehsil and District Kathua against the applicant and initial

    investigation was entrusted to SI Suresh Kumar. During the course of

    investigation, Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan

    of the place of occurrence on the identification of the complainant,

    statement of the complainant under section 183-BNSS was recorded before

    the Judicial Magistrate.

    07. It appears that as per the FIR, the date of occurrence is

    10.02.2024, whereas the complaint has been lodged on 19.08.2025, nearly

    after a lapse of more than 1½ years. On perusal of the material on record, it

    appears that during this time, the allegation is that the applicant established

    physical relationship with her without her will and consent many times on

    the threat of making the photographs and video viral but no such complaint

    was made by the complainant to any authorities. It is further submitted that

    the alleged photographs and videos have not been released.

    08. The provision for grant of anticipatory bail is provided in Section

    482 of BNSS 2023. Section 482 of BNS 2023 clearly stipulates that when a

    person has a reasonable apprehension to believe he can be arrested on an

    accusation for commitment of non-bailable offence, he can move to the

    High Court or to the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail. The

    power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised by the Court in very

    exceptional cases. The Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable

    cause and reasonable grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. This Section

    protects the right to life and personal liberty of such person by providing

    him a remedy against frivolous detention.

    5

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    09. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth versus State of Gujarat & anr.,

    reported as 2016 (1) SCC 152, certain guidelines in respect of grant of

    anticipatory bail have been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-

    23, which read as under:-

    23………..

    (x) We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment wherein the Court
    delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into
    consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

    (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the
    accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

    (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the
    accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
    respect of any cognizable offence;

    (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

    (d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other
    offences;

    (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of
    injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

    (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
    magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

    (g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the
    accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role
    of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the
    help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider
    with even greater care and caution, because overimplication in the cases is a
    matter of common knowledge and concern;

    (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
    balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice
    should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be
    prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
    accused;

    (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of
    the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

    (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only
    the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
    of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
    prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order
    of bail.

    10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

    record, it is evident that victim is a major woman. The allegation of rape
    6

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    was on 10.02.2024 and the FIR was lodged on 05.09.2025 about one and

    half years from the said date and in between there is allegation of any

    sexual assault many times but no complaint was made by the victim or

    anybody to any authority. There is no alleged photos or videos recovered

    during evidence.

    11. The nature and gravity of the accusations and the exact role of

    the accused must be properly comprehended before the arrest is made. The

    antecedents of the applicant, including the fact as to whether the accused

    has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in

    respect of any cognizable offence, are also relevant considerations. The

    Court is further required to examine the likelihood of the applicant

    repeating a similar or any other offence. It is well settled that anticipatory

    bail cannot be granted as a matter of rule and can be granted only when the

    Court is convinced/satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to resort

    to the extraordinary remedy.

    12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that attribute of fairness in

    prosecution should always be considered and in the event of there being

    some doubts as to the genuineness of the prosecution in the normal course,

    the accused would be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. No inflexible

    guidelines or jacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of

    anticipatory bail as it should depend upon the facts and circumstances of

    the each case.

    13. At this stage, reliance has been placed on the case of Gurbaksh

    Singh Sibbia etc. vs. State of Punjab reported as 1980 (2) SCC 565,

    whereby the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
    7

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:1989

    an anticipatory bail can be granted so long as the applicant has not been

    arrested.

    14. Looking into the facts and circumstances and considering the

    dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and

    circumstances of this case, this bail application is allowed and the

    applicant, in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 0095/2025, is directed to be

    released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

    i. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with
    two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
    Officer.

    ii. The applicant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer
    within a period of 15 days from today, failing which this order
    shall automatically stand cancelled and the applicant shall report
    to the Police Station daily at 10 AM till further orders;
    iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in
    any manner and he shall not directly or indirectly make any threat
    or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
    He should cooperate with Investigating Officer as well as the
    Trial Court and in case of any violation of such conditions, the
    prosecution can file a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

    15. This bail application alongwith interim application stands

    disposed of, accordingly.

    (SINDHU SHARMA)
    Judge
    JAMMU
    RAM MURTI/PS
    07.07.2026



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here