Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shahid Ahmed vs Ut Of J&K Th. Sho Police Station on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025
Reserved on: 18.04.2026
Pronounced on: 24.04.2026
Uploaded on: 24.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full judgment.
1. Shahid Ahmed, (In Bail App No. 327/2025)
Age 25 years, S/O Farooq Bohra R/o
Dachan, Tehsil Gool District Ramban,
(J&K UT) A/P District Jail Udhampur.
2. Muzamil Aziz, (In Bail App No. 293/2025)
Age 28 years S/O Abdul Aziz Gutt R/O
Near ITI Gool, Tehsil Gool, District
Ramban
Th. Father Abdul Aziz S/O Ghulam
Ahmed Gutt R/O Near ITI Gool, Tehsil
Gool, District Ramban .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M. A. Bhat, Advocate
Mr. Narinder Kumar Attri, Advocate.
Vs
1. UT of J&K Th. SHO Police Station
Gool.
2. Superintendent District Jail ..... Respondent(s)
Udhampur.
Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Both these bail applications arise out of the same charge-sheet titled
“UT of J&K vs. Muzamil Aziz and another“, in FIR No. 76/2024 dated
14.09.2024 of Police Station, Gool for commission of offences under
Sections 376-D, 34, 506 IPC, pending before the Fast Track Court,
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 1 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
Ramban (for short ‘the Trial Court”), as such, both these applications
are being decided by this common order.
2. Petitioner-Shahid Ahmed, in Bail App No. 327/2025, is seeking bail
on the ground that he was initially not named in the first information
report and the statement made by the prosecutrix in the court is full of
contradictions, exaggerations and improvements and further that she
has denied the entire contents of the FIR. It is further stated that even
the DNA test has established the first version of the prosecutrix and
the benefit of the irreconcilable conflict between the first statement
and the later version of the prosecutrix has to be given to the
petitioner. It is also urged that the DNA test conducted during the
investigation falsifies the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 183 BNSS and her statement before the learned trial court.
3. Petitioner-Muzamil Aziz in Bail App No 293/2025 is seeking bail on
the ground that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration
that the alleged occurrence relates back to the month of January 2024
but reported for the first time on 14.09.2024 after birth of the child and
that the entire version of the FIR was negated by the prosecutrix
during her statement recorded before the learned trial court. It is also
stated that out of 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 5 witnesses,
who are the material witnesses of the prosecution stand already
examined.
4. The respondents have filed the response, thereby narrating the factual
aspects of the case and it is stated that the FIR was registered on
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 2 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
14.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 76/2024, pursuant to the complaint
submitted by the prosecutrix and during her statement recorded before
the Magistrate, under Section 183 of BNSS, offences under Sections
376-D, 34 and 506 IPC were added and Section 376 IPC was deleted,
as the prosecutrix, in her statement, had stated that she was raped
multiple times by Muzamil Aziz and thrice by Shahid Ahmed. The
victim had also given birth to a baby girl. It is further stated that the
report of the DNA profiling was also obtained. Accordingly,
chargesheet against the petitioners was filed before the learned trial
court for commission of offences under Section 376-D, 34 and 506
IPC.
5. Mr. M. A. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Shahid
Ahmed has submitted that the petitioner-Shahid Ahmed was never
named as accused in FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the
case and he further submitted that the prosecutrix has made
contradictory statements in her deposition before the learned trial
court.
6. Mr. Narinder Kumar Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner-Muzamil
Aziz has submitted that the prosecutrix has stated in her cross-
examination that had she not become pregnant, she would have never
made any complaint before the Police. He has further argued that there
are different versions of the prosecutrix with regard to the occurrence,
as such, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 3 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
7. Per contra, Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, learned GA appearing for the UT
of J&K has submitted that the petitioners have been charged for
commission of offences under Sections 376-D, 34 and 506 IPC and as
a result of commission of rape of the prosecutrix, one female child was
also born, who was surrendered by the prosecutrix to the Child
Welfare Committee. He has vehemently argued that both the accused
have sexually exploited the poor girl and she has categorically made
statement against both the petitioners and while considering the bail
application, evidence cannot be appreciated.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The record depicts that initially in the FIR, 376 IPC was registered
only against accused Muzamil Aziz, however, when the statement of
the prosecutrix was recorded before the learned Magistrate under
Section 183 of BNSS, it came to the fore that she was sexually
exploited not only by Muzamil Aziz but also by Shahid Ahmed, who
happened to be her friend. As a result of the rape, a female child was
born and the medical officer collected the DNA sample from the
victim, her baby and both the accused persons. The DNA profiling
report confirmed that Muzamil Aziz is the biological father of the
victim’s child, as his DNA matched with the child, whereas DNA of
Shahid Ahmed did not match. In her statement before the Magistrate,
she had categorically stated that not only Muzamil Aziz but also
Shahid Ahmed repeatedly raped her, as a result of which offence under
Section 376-D IPC was established by the Investigating Officer
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 4 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
against both the accused. The victim’s girl child was surrendered by
her and was staying in Special Adoption Agency (SAA), Maitra
Ramban. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet for
commission of offences under Sections 376-D, 34 and 506 IPC was
filed against the petitioners before the learned trial court and charges
for commission of above mentioned offences were framed against the
petitioners on 05.03.2025.
10. There are serious allegations of sexually exploiting the prosecutrix
against the petitioners. They have not only shattered the life of the
prosecutrix, but as a result of offence of rape committed by the
petitioner-Muzamil Aziz, one female child has also born, who has
been left at the mercy of almighty, as the prosecutrix too has
surrendered her before the Child Welfare Committee and as per the
charge-sheet, the child is staying in Special Adoption Agency (SAA),
Maitra Ramban.
11. Though, name of Shahid Ahmed was not mentioned in the FIR
initially, but subsequently, in her statement before the Magistrate she
had categorically deposed against Shahid Ahmed as well, as a result of
which, Investigating Officer deleted offence under Section 376 IPC
and added offence under Section 376-D IPC against both the accused
persons.
12. This Court has examined the statement of the prosecutrix and it is not
forthcoming from her statement that the prosecutrix has either
exonerated the petitioners or has turned hostile against prosecution.
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 5 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
The petitioners, in fact, want this Court to appreciate evidence of the
victim, which this Court cannot, while considering the bail application.
13. It is settled law that while considering the bail application, Court can
only look into evidence so as to find out as to whether there is any
evidence against the accused or not, but can in no manner, appreciate
the evidence brought on record, the exercise to be conducted by the
learned trial court while deciding the case finally.
14. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case titled
as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and
another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 wherein the parameters to be
taken into consideration for grant of bail by the Courts have been
explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other circumstances,
the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 6 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
(See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3
SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas
[(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)”
15. Offence under Section 376-D IPC is heinous in nature and is
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20
years and extendable to life.
16. The petitioners were arrested on 20.09.2024 and were charged on
05.03.2025. A perusal of the scanned record summoned by this Court
reveals that seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that three
more witnesses have been examined, meaning thereby, during the span
of one year and two months, ten witnesses have already been
examined and it cannot be said that right of the petitioners to speedy
trial has been violated, as the prosecution has been diligently
producing the witnesses before the learned trial court and rather on
couple of occasions, witnesses could not be examined due to absence
of learned counsel representing the petitioners.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in an appeal challenging grant of
bail in Bhagwan Singh vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and
another reported in 2023 INSC 761 has observed as under:
“17. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and
would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and
the age old principle of यत्र नाययस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र दे वता:
(where women are respected Gods live there) would recede
to the background and the guilty not being punished by
process of law or accused persons are allowed to move
around freely in the society or in spite of there being prima
facie material being present they are allowed to moveBail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 7 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are
likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution
witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the
criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to
necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to
erroneous orders being passed by courts below.”
18. The allegations levelled against the applicants are not only grave and
heinous but strike at the very conscience of society. The material on
record, including the medical evidence and the birth of a child as a
direct consequence of the alleged repeated sexual assault, prima facie
establishes a case of extreme depravity. In matters of gang rape, the
individual liberty of the accused must yield to the collective interest of
the community and the need to protect the victim from potential
intimidation. Given the nature of the evidence, the severity of the
punishment prescribed under Section 376-D of the IPC, and the high
probability of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with
evidence in a case of this magnitude, this Court finds no merit in the
application.
19. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case titled
as X vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 INSC 909 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc. once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the trial court
or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
20. Furthermore, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the tragic fate of
the innocent child born out of this heinous act. The child, already
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 8 of 9
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1099
bearing the lifelong stigma of being born from such a traumatic event,
now faces the double blow of abandonment by the mother, who herself
is likely grappling with profound psychological scars. The accused, by
their alleged actions, have not only violated the dignity of the
prosecutrix but have also effectively orphaned a child, leaving her to
the mercy of the state or charitable institutions. This cascading effect
of the crime where a new life is rendered vulnerable and destitute from
birth adds a layer of social and moral depravity that weighs heavily
against the grant of any discretionary relief.
21. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that
petitioners cannot be granted bail at this stage, as such, both the bail
applications are dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not
returned any finding qua the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution before the learned trial court and finding, if any, by this
Court is solely for the purpose of deciding bail applications.
22. Dismissed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
24.04.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Bail App No. 327/2025
c/w
Bail App No. 293/2025 Page 9 of 9