Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ajay Kumar Sharma vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 24 June, 2026
Sr. No. 41
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
Date of pronouncement: 24.06.2026
Date of uploading : 03.07.2026
Ajay Kumar Sharma .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Dinesh Verma, Advocate
v/s
UT of J&K and Others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
1. The petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 0055/2026 dated
21.02.2026 registered at Police Station Udhampur for offences
punishable under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The petitioners contend that they had been in a
consensual love relationship since the year 2024, which was within
the knowledge of the families of both parties. During the course of
their relationship, they established physical relations, as a
consequence whereof petitioner No. 2 conceived sometime in the year
2025. Upon the families becoming aware of the pregnancy, it was
mutually decided that the petitioners would solemnize their marriage
immediately after petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, i.e., on
21.01.2026. It was further decided that the pregnancy would be
medically terminated; however, petitioner No. 2 did not consent to
2 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
such termination. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 delivered a female child
at a hospital in Udhampur. According to the petitioners, it was only
upon the birth of the child that the police-initiated action and
registered the impugned FIR against petitioner No. 1. It is their
specific case that although petitioner No. 2 had attained the age of
majority at the time of delivery, the police proceeded to register the
FIR on the premise that the conception had occurred while she was
still a minor, despite being aware that the parents and members of the
baradari of both parties had requested the police not to register any
case and to treat the matter as closed.
2. It is further pleaded that the petitioners solemnized their marriage in
accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 23.03.2026 at Arya
Samaj, Janipur Colony, Jammu, in the presence of members of both
families. On the strength of the subsequent marriage and the
consensual nature of their relationship, the petitioners contend that the
registration and continuation of the impugned FIR constitute an abuse
of the process of law and have been initiated solely to harass them.
3. This Court, vide order dated 01.04.2026, directed the Investigating
Agency to proceed with the investigation but restrained it from filing
the charge-sheet without obtaining prior leave of this Court.
4. It is also averred that petitioner No. 1 is serving in the Army. He had
approached the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Udhampur, seeking anticipatory bail; however, his application came to
be dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2026. Aggrieved thereby,
3 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
petitioner No. 1 has preferred Bail App No. 78/2026 before this Court
seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.
Bail App No. 78/2026
1) In the bail application, the victim, who is also petitioner No. 2 in CRM
(M) No. 303/2026, has been arrayed as respondent No. 3. On the
previous dates of hearing, the Investigating Officer had appeared in
person along with the Case Diary and was directed to ensure the
presence of the victim before this Court. In compliance with the said
direction, the victim appeared today accompanied by her uncle. She
stated that she has now attained the age of majority. However, when
queried as to whether she had consciously and voluntarily joined
petitioner No. 1 in filing the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, she
was unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation.
2) A perusal of the Case Diary reveals that on 21.02.2026, the police
authorities of Police Station Udhampur received information from the
Government Medical College, Udhampur that an unmarried girl,
namely the victim (petitioner No. 2 in CRM (M) No. 303/2026), had
delivered a female child in the labour room. Verification of her
Aadhaar Card disclosed her date of birth as 26.01.2008. Although she
had attained the age of majority by the time the matter came to the
notice of the police, it was evident that she had conceived while she
was approximately 17 years of age. The attending circumstances prima
facie indicated that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse during
her minority, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0055/2026 dated
4 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/202621.02.2026 for offences punishable under Section 64(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3) During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita. In her statement, she alleged that in June, 2025, while she had
gone alone to fetch water, petitioner No. 1 accosted her, gagged her by
placing his hand over her mouth, forcibly removed her clothes and
committed rape upon her. She further stated that the accused
threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to
anyone. According to the victim, she conceived as a consequence of
the said act but, owing to fear of the accused and social stigma, she did
not disclose either the occurrence or her pregnancy to any member of
her family.
4) Case Diary further discloses that on 21.02.2026, when the victim
developed labour pains, she informed her mother for the first time
about the alleged incident of June, 2025. She was immediately taken to
the Government Medical College, Udhampur, where she delivered a
female child on the same day. Since the family of petitioner No. 1
declined to accept the custody and responsibility of the newborn, the
infant was subsequently handed over to the Child Welfare Committee,
Udhampur.
5) The Case Diary further reveals that petitioner No. 1, who is serving in
the Army, has not joined the investigation despite repeated efforts
5 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
made by the investigating agency. Various communications addressed
to the Army authorities of JAKLI-11 requesting that the accused be
made available to the investigating agency have not yielded the desired
response. The investigating agency has specifically stated that
obtaining the DNA sample of petitioner No. 1 is imperative for
conducting scientific examination and comparison with the DNA
profile of the child born to the victim. According to the Case Diary,
such DNA profiling constitutes vital and indispensable scientific
evidence for establishing the paternity of the child and for effectively
investigating the allegations levelled against petitioner No. 1.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the present proceedings
are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as subsequent to the
registration of the FIR, the parties solemnized their marriage on
23.03.2026. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon
the photographs appended with the petition, which, according to the
petitioners, depict the presence of family members from both sides
during the marriage ceremony. It was further contended that the case
arises out of a consensual relationship between the parties. While
conceding that petitioner No. 2 was a minor at the inception of their
relationship, learned counsel vehemently argued that the victim herself
has joined petitioner No. 1 in filing petition seeking quashment of the
FIR. When confronted with the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 183 of the BNSS, learned counsel says that the said statement
was extracted under the influence and pressure of the investigating
6 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
agency. According to him, the police, having found that the victim had
conceived during her minority, deliberately fabricated the case,
particularly when neither the victim’s father nor her mother had lodged
any complaint with the police leading to the registration of the FIR.
7) The respondents, however, contended that the allegations disclose the
commission of serious offences involving sexual assault upon a minor
girl. It was submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 183 of the
BNSS, has narrated the incident in detail, thereby substantiating the
prosecution case. It was further argued that since the alleged acts were
committed during the minority of the victim, her consent, if any, is
legally immaterial and cannot be recognized in law. Consequently, the
petitioners’ attempt to invoke the so-called Romeo-Juliet principle does
not absolve petitioner No. 1 of criminal liability, particularly when the
victim was admittedly a minor at the relevant point of time.
8) It was further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and
that collection of DNA samples is an essential and crucial step in the
investigation. Since petitioner No. 1 himself admits that he was in a
romantic relationship with the victim, his DNA sample assumes
significant evidentiary value for the purposes of forensic examination.
According to the respondents, despite repeated opportunities, petitioner
No. 1 has failed to join the investigation and submit to DNA profiling,
thereby obstructing and frustrating the completion of the investigation,
7 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
which is otherwise stated to be substantially complete except for
obtaining the requisite DNA samples.
9) After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at
the Bar, it emerges that the alleged incident took place in June 2025, at
the relevant point of time, she is stated to have been between 17 and 18
years of age. However, according to the prosecution, her date of birth,
as reflected in her matriculation certificate, is 20.01.2008.
Consequently, by the time the FIR came to be registered on
21.02.2026, she had already attained the age of majority.
10) The victim has alleged that the accused subjected her to sexual
intercourse against her will and without her consent while she was still
a minor. She reiterated these allegations in her statement recorded
before the learned Magistrate. However, subsequently, on 30.03.2026,
she joined hands with the accused-petitioner and filed a petition before
this Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
11) Significantly, the averments made in the joint petition are not entirely
inconsistent with the statement made by the victim before the learned
Magistrate. On the one hand, she has made allegations against the
accused during the investigation, while on the other, it is alleged that
she solemnized marriage with petitioner No. 1 at Arya Samaj, Janipur
Colony, Jammu on 23.03.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that the alleged marriage has been projected
only with a view to escape the rigours of criminal prosecution.
Although, at first blush, the said contention appears attractive, there is
8 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
no dispute that the FIR was not lodged at the instance of the victim or
her family. It was only after the victim delivered a baby girl in the
hospital on 21.02.2026 that the police set the criminal law into motion,
on its own. The respondents have further asserted that the petitioner’s
claim that the families of both parties had consented to the marriage is
wholly false. Had that been so, according to the respondents, the
parents of the victim would not have supported the prosecution case
during the course of investigation. The accused, however, has
controverted this assertion by alleging that the police, with a view to
justify the registration of the FIR, prevailed upon the victim as well as
her parents to make statements favourable to the prosecution. It has
been further argued on behalf of the accused that the entire
investigation is tainted and that the sole object of the investigating
agency is to secure the arrest of petitioner No. 1 and subject him to
unnecessary harassment.
12) If there had been any substance in the allegation that the relationship
between the parties was entirely involuntary or coercive, it would be
difficult to comprehend why the parties chose to solemnize their
marriage after petitioner No. 2 had admittedly attained the age of
majority.
13) It is in the aforesaid background that both the petitions require
consideration. Insofar as CRM (M) No. 303/2026 is concerned, both
the petitioners, including the victim herself, seek quashing of the FIR.
The principal basis for seeking such relief is the marriage solemnized
9 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
between the parties on 23.03.2026, which admittedly took place after
the registration of the FIR and during the pendency of the
investigation.
14) It is an admitted position that, on the date of registration of the FIR, the
victim had already attained the age of majority. Her date of birth, as
recorded in the matriculation certificate, is 20.01.2008. It is equally
well settled that, although the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 does not prescribe any independent procedure for
determination of the age of the victim, the age is required to be
determined in accordance with the procedure contemplated under
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015. The said provision provides the statutory mechanism for
age determination and has consistently been applied by courts while
adjudicating prosecutions under the POCSO Act (Section 34).
15) The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2025 INSC 737, has categorically laid that the statute
prescribes a clear hierarchy of documents for determination of age.
The first and foremost document is the matriculation or equivalent
school certificate reflecting the date of birth; in its absence, the birth
certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Panchayat or other
competent authority is to be relied upon; and only where both such
documents are unavailable can recourse be taken to medical opinion or
an ossification test.
10 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
16) In the present case, the matriculation certificate relied upon by the
petitioners records the victim’s date of birth as 20.01.2008. The
material collected during investigation, as reflected in the case diary,
further reveals that at the time the FIR came to be registered, the
victim had delivered a female child through a normal vaginal delivery
after completing approximately 36 weeks of gestation. These facts
prima facie indicate that the conception had occurred when the victim
was below 18 years of age. Therefore, there appears to be considerable
substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that
the subsequent marriage between the victim and petitioner No. 1 was
solemnized only after the victim had undergone the trauma of an
unwanted pregnancy allegedly resulting from the sexual assault, and
that such marriage may have been entered into with the object of
enabling petitioner No. 1 to evade the consequences of the criminal
prosecution.
17) While the victim has alleged that she was subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse, she has simultaneously joined the accused in seeking
quashing of the FIR. This apparent inconsistency reflects the
predicament and emotional dilemma in which the victim appears to
have found herself. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however,
vehemently contended that the relationship between the parties was
consensual throughout and that petitioner No. 1 had never resiled from
his intention to marry the victim. It was further argued that the FIR
was neither lodged by the victim nor by her parents and that the
11 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
criminal proceedings came to be initiated only after the hospital
authorities informed the police that an unmarried girl had delivered a
child, thereby rendering the prosecution an afterthought. These rival
submissions, however, can only be appreciated in the light of the
material collected during investigation and are matters to be examined
during the course of the trial.
18) Be that as it may, the victim has made a statement under Section 183,
which forms part of the investigation, alleging that petitioner No. 1
subjected her to sexual assault during the period when she was a
minor. Even assuming that the relationship was consensual, such
consent is of no legal consequence, as the victim, being a minor at the
relevant time, was incapable of giving valid consent in the eyes of law.
The petitioners have sought to derive support from the decision in K.
Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1272 to contend that
petitioner No. 1 never intended to deceive the victim but had always
intended to marry her. However, the reliance is misplaced. In that case,
the accused had been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
and the conviction was affirmed by the Madras High Court.
Subsequently, after the conviction and sentence had attained finality,
the accused and the victim solemnized their marriage in the presence
of their families, and the marriage resulted in the birth of a male child.
In those peculiar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings.
12 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
The factual matrix of the said case is, therefore, entirely
distinguishable from the present case.
19) In the present matter, the investigation is still in progress. At this stage,
the petitioners have failed to establish that the allegations of forcible
sexual assault levelled by the victim (petitioner No. 2) are devoid of
any legal or factual foundation. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
placed reliance upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another,
2026 INSC 47. However, the said judgment is equally inapplicable to
the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therein was
primarily dealing with the legality of certain directions issued by the
High Court, which were found to be contrary to the statutory scheme
of the Juvenile Justice Act. While doing so, the Court observed that the
misuse of the POCSO Act reflects a serious societal concern: on one
hand, many child victims remain silenced by fear, poverty, or social
stigma, rendering justice elusive; on the other hand, persons possessing
social, educational, or financial privilege are, at times, able to
manipulate the legal process to their advantage. The Court also noticed
instances where the age of the victim is misrepresented to attract the
stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, as well as cases where the
statute is invoked by families to oppose consensual relationships
between adolescents. It was in that context that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court recommended that the Legislature consider incorporating a
“Romeo and Juliet” clause in the statutory framework to exclude
genuine adolescent relationships from the rigours of the Act.
13 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
20) It shall be open to petitioner No. 1 to establish during the course of
trial that the statement made by the victim under Section 183 was the
result of police influence or a tainted investigation. However, as
matters presently stand, petitioner No. 1 has failed to demonstrate that
the investigation is vitiated by mala fides, ulterior motives, or any
procedural illegality, or that the material collected during investigation
does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
21) On the contrary, the victim has, in her statement recorded under
Section 183, specifically levelled allegations against petitioner No. 1.
The parents of the victim have also stated that the victim informed
them that petitioner No. 1 had subjected her to forcible sexual
intercourse without her consent, which ultimately resulted in her
pregnancy. At the same time, it may pose a serious challenge for the
prosecution during trial to explain how the victim’s parents remained
unaware of their daughter’s pregnancy throughout its course,
culminating in the delivery of a fully developed child.
22) While exercising jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, this
Court cannot undertake an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon
disputed questions of fact, as such an exercise squarely falls within the
domain of the trial Court.
23) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case for quashing the proceedings is made out.
Accordingly, CRM (M) No. 303/2026 is dismissed. The
investigating agency shall proceed with the investigation in
14 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
accordance with law and file the final report/charge-sheet before
the competent Court.
24) While considering the present bail application, this Court, in the
exercise of its jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail, is required to
examine whether there exist a prima facie case or reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused has committed the alleged offence. The
Court is also required to take into account the nature and gravity of the
accusation, the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction,
and the likelihood of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice if
released on bail. It is equally well settled that the mere apprehension of
the accused tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses
cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for refusal of bail.
However, where the material on record indicates that the accused is of
such character or influence that his liberty is likely to intimidate
witnesses, interfere with the administration of justice, or otherwise
subvert the course of investigation or trial by tampering with evidence,
the Court would be justified in declining the relief of bail.
25) In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of State of U.P.
v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21. Similar principles were
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v.
State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) SCC 281, wherein it was held as under:
“While considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This
requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the
impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case
is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the
15 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026merits is not required. Where the offence is of serious nature the question of
grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of
the offence, the character of the evidence and amongst others the larger
interest of the public.”
26) Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the
petitioner has neither joined the investigation nor cooperated with the
investigating agency and has remained absconding since the
registration of the FIR. The petitioner has, however, stoutly
controverted the said allegation by submitting that he is serving in the
Army and that the Investigating Officer had been duly informed of his
continued service. It is argued that despite being aware of the
petitioner’s place of service, the investigating agency made no sincere
effort to secure his custody through the competent Army authorities. A
perusal of the case diary lends support to this contention, as it reveals
that, apart from issuing a communication to the Army authorities
requesting the petitioner’s appearance, no further effective steps were
taken to secure his presence. In these circumstances, the allegation that
the petitioner was deliberately absconding cannot be accepted as an
unquestionable fact.
27) It is also noteworthy that while the FIR came to be registered on
21.02.2026, the petitioner and the victim are stated to have solemnized
their marriage on 23.03.2026 at Arya Samaj Janipur Colony, Jammu.
According to the petitioners, the marriage was witnessed by members
of both families. If this assertion is correct, it necessarily follows that
the petitioner travelled from his place of posting to Jammu for the
16 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
purpose of the marriage. Such conduct does not prima facie support the
prosecution’s allegation that the petitioner had been evading the
process of law or had intentionally absconded after registration of the
FIR.
28) The petitioner seeks the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail on the
plea that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with an oblique
motive and that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of law. It is
contended that neither the victim nor her parents lodged any complaint
alleging sexual assault and that the FIR came to be registered only
after the hospital authorities informed the police that the victim, being
an unmarried minor, had delivered a child. It is further submitted that
the consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim was
well known to their respective families and that immediately after the
victim attained the age of majority in the year 2026, both parties
solemnized their marriage, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner
never intended to commit any offence.
29) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the sole
object of the investigating agency is to secure the petitioner’s arrest so
as to subject him to humiliation and unnecessary harassment, which
may also result in the loss of his employment in the Army. On the
other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that the victim and the child are presently under the care of
the Child Welfare Committee and that collection of the petitioner’s
DNA sample is imperative for establishing the paternity of the child,
17 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
which constitutes an important piece of evidence in the investigation.
The case diary also records that the investigating agency intends to
obtain the petitioner’s DNA sample for this purpose.
30) Having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that the
petitioner’s consistent stand is that he was in a consensual relationship
with the victim and that they solemnized their marriage after the
registration of the FIR. In effect, the petitioner acknowledges that he
had maintained a relationship with the victim during the period when
she was a minor and that the said relationship culminated in her
pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a female child. In view of this
admission, there ought to be no hesitation on the part of the petitioner
in submitting himself for DNA examination whenever lawfully
required by the investigating agency.
31) The principal question that now arises for consideration is whether, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is
entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Having regard to the material
placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the question
deserves to be answered in the affirmative.
32) According to the victim herself, the alleged incident occurred
sometime in the month of June, 2025. It is not possible, at this stage, to
conclusively determine whether the victim conceived as a consequence
of a solitary act of sexual intercourse. Although she has stated that the
petitioner had advised her to terminate the pregnancy, she refused to
do so. It was only when she experienced labour pains that her parents
18 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
took her to the hospital at Udhampur, where she disclosed that the
petitioner had subjected her to sexual intercourse. Significantly,
despite the obvious social repercussions attached to such allegations,
neither the victim nor her parents approached the police to lodge a
complaint. The criminal law was set in motion only after the hospital
authorities informed the police that the victim, being an unmarried girl
who had conceived while still a minor, had delivered a child.
33) Learned counsel for the official respondents has fairly submitted that
the marriage was merely a device adopted by the petitioner to create
mitigating circumstances in his favour. Such a submission may indeed
have relevance at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
Nevertheless, the admitted factual position remains that the victim was
a minor at the time when the physical relationship developed and,
therefore, in law, her consent would be of no consequence for the
purpose of determining criminal liability under the POCSO Act. At the
same time, the subsequent conduct of the parties, particularly their
marriage after the victim attained majority, has neither been shown to
have been brought about by coercion nor by any threat or undue
influence. This aspect cannot be altogether ignored while considering
the limited question of grant of bail.
34) The petitioner has challenged the applicability of the provisions of the
POCSO Act at the very first available opportunity, namely, during the
consideration of his prayer for anticipatory bail. His contention is that
although the victim was below eighteen years of age, she was more
19 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
than seventeen years old, was fully conscious of her actions and had
voluntarily participated in the relationship which ultimately resulted in
her pregnancy.
35) The petitioner has also been able to demonstrate certain inconsistencies
in the conduct of the victim. While, on the one hand, she has made
allegations against him in her statement under Section 183 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, on the other hand, after attaining
majority, she voluntarily joined him in seeking quashing of the FIR.
This apparent inconsistency lends some prima facie support to the
petitioner’s apprehension that the provisions of the POCSO Act have
been invoked in circumstances where the parties themselves assert that
they were in a consensual relationship. Needless to observe, the prayer
for bail under the POCSO Act is required to be considered strictly in
accordance with the settled principles governing grant of bail. While
the victim’s minority at the relevant time cannot be overlooked, her
subsequent conduct and the inconsistencies in her version constitute
circumstances that may legitimately be taken into account while
considering the petitioner’s prayer for bail. The petitioner is serving in
the Army, and there is nothing on record to indicate that he is likely to
flee from justice or interfere with the investigation. The fundamental
object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during the course
of the proceedings, and the investigation in the present case is still
underway.
20 Bail App No. 78/2026 c/w
CRM (M) No. 303/2026
36) For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has
made out a strong prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, on being arrested, he shall be released from custody on
his furnishing of bail and personal bond to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer and on condition of his extending full
cooperation with the investigation, enabling the later to conclude his
investigation and in case charge is made out then proceed with filing of
charge sheet against the petitioner. Once that stage is reached the trial
court shall be free to impose further conditions for securing presence
of the petitioner in trial. The bail application is, accordingly, disposed
of.
37) Copy of this order be furnished to the I/O for compliance.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
JAMMU
24.06.2026
Manik
Whether this order is speaking : Yes
Whether this order is reportable : Yes
