J&K High Court Denies Bail
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman under the false promise of marriage, stating that there is prima facie material suggesting that the petitioner engaged the complainant over social media.
The court added that it appears that the petitioner extracted sexual favours under the pretext of marriage, and then failed to fulfil his promise.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the contention that the FIR is motivated or unfounded, while observing that granting bail at the investigation stage may frustrate the collection of crucial electronic evidence and send a wrong signal to victims of such offences.
The court however quashed the FIR with respect to family members stating that there was nothing in the FIR against the other petitioners that shows they were privy to the sexual relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. and prosecution against them will be abuse of the process of law.
The court with respect to petitioner no. 1 said that it is not a case where the allegations are frivolous. It said that there is material on record to support the allegations.
The court highlighed the sensitivity and seriousness of the accusations emphasising the importance of collecting digital evidence.
It said that the Investigating Agency will have to seize the petitioner’s electronic devices and if the anticipatory bail is granted, it is likely that he may destroy such evidence, adversely impacting the investigation.
The Court also warned that prematurely granting bail could discourage other survivors of sexual abuse from coming forward stating that “It would have a discouraging effect on the prosecutrix, who appears to have braved societal odds to initiate action against the accused.”
The counsel for petitioner argued that FIR was the result of afterthought and a counterblast to criminal complaint filed by petitioner against the complainant before District Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag (DMM) for extorting 17 lacs in lieu of dropping the marriage proposal.
The court said that It appears that petitioner No.1 filed the complaint against respondent No.2 only after she confronted him at his home over breaking his promise of marriage, prompting the village Auqaf Committee to step in which suggests that his complaint may have been a reaction to avoid action from her side.
The counsel also argued that mere breach of promise to marry due to certain circumstances could not tantamount to offence under section 69 of BNS.
The court observed that anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially in cases involving serious offences like rape or cheating under false promise of marriage.
The court emphasized the balancing of individual liberty with the societal interest and victim’s rights must be maintained.
The initial stage of investigation is critical for evidence collection, particularly electronic records in cases involving social media and digital communication.
BACKGROUND
The FIR in question was registered alleging that the complainant claims that petitioner No.1 falsely promised marriage and maintained a relationship with her under that pretense, even cohabiting with her at his home in Gund Jaffar and in Delhi, treating her as his wife. She alleges that this is supported by their phone and message exchanges.
The complainant further alleged thay she was invited again to the petitioner’s home for a supposed formal conference. During this visit, petitioner No.1 allegedly took her to a separate room at night and repeatedly raped her.
When she raised an alarm, other family members arrived, and upon hearing her allegations, they allegedly beat her and threatened her with serious consequences. Throughout, petitioner No.1 is said to have continued giving her the false impression of an imminent marriage.
APPEARANCE
Shafqat Nazir, Advocate.Shabir Ahmad, Advocate For Petitioner
Ilyas Laway, GA-for R1, Mian Tufail, Adv-for R2. Advocate For Respondents
Case-Title: SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. Vs UT OF J&K & another, 2025
