Kashmir Man Denied Bail In Rape Case As WhatsApp Chats Reveal False Promise Of Marriage: High Court
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
The judge pointed out that the woman had clearly shown hesitation to be in a sexual relationship without marriage. But the accused repeatedly convinced her that he would marry her.
Srinagar, June 2025 — The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man from Anantnag, Shakir-ul-Hassan, who is accused of raping a woman by falsely promising to marry her. The court said that the WhatsApp messages between the two clearly show that he made a promise of marriage just to have a physical relationship.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the bail application, said the allegations were “very serious in nature” and added that giving bail at this point “would thwart the course of investigation and it is likely that he would succeed in destroying the electronic evidence.”
Background
As per police records, the accused Shakir-ul-Hassan started a relationship with the woman in 2021 after she lent him Rs.10 lakh for his higher studies. The woman has claimed that he presented her as his wife and had sexual relations with her multiple times—both in Delhi and Anantnag—while continuously promising marriage. However, in 2023, he abruptly ended all contact.
The FIR was filed after an incident in March 2025, when the woman alleged that Shakir raped her at his home in Anantnag while she was there for a conference. She also claimed that when she resisted, his brothers beat her and tried to silence her.
The judge stated:
“…Shakir-ul-Hassan cohabited with the complainant, both at his residential house situated at Gund Jaffar, Anantnag, and also at Delhi, several times by representing that she is his wife which, according to the complainant, is clear from phone calls and messages exchanged between the two.”
He added that:
“A perusal of the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the two would reveal that Shakir-ul-Hassan has been expressing not only his love for the complainant but he has been time and again assuring her that he would enter into wedlock with her.”
The judge pointed out that the woman had clearly shown hesitation to be in a sexual relationship without marriage. But the accused repeatedly convinced her that he would marry her.
“The chats reveal that at one point in time, complainant showed her reluctance to enter into sexual relationship with Shakir-ul-Hassan but he assured her that if he is going to marry, he would be marrying her only and nobody else.”
Based on screenshots of these chats, the court noted:
“All these chats, prima facie, show that Shakir-ul-Hassan has been extending promises of marriage to the complainant from time to time and extracting sexual favours from her.”
Shakir-ul-Hassan said their relationship was consensual and that the woman filed the rape case only after he refused to marry her. He claimed she had criminal charges against her and demanded ₹17 lakh to drop the complaint. But the court didn’t accept his argument.
Justice Dhar said:
“It is quite possible that it is Shakir-ul-Hassan who, as a counterblast to the aforesaid action of complainant, proceeded to file complaint against her with a view to pre-empt lodging of FIR by her against him. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is, therefore, without any merit.”
He clarified that the truth about whether the consent was genuine or forced under false promise would only be decided during trial:
“…there is no straightjacket for determining as to whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under a misconception of fact.”
The court emphasised the seriousness of the matter and said it must be properly investigated:
“…extracting sexual favours from her, is also a matter which requires to be investigated. At this stage and in these proceedings, this Court cannot hold a mini-trial to ascertain the veracity of the respective stands taken by the parties…”
The defence had also questioned the legality of the FIR, saying it was filed without the magistrate’s order. But the court said the magistrate had clearly directed the police to act according to law.
While denying bail to Shakir-ul-Hassan, the court dismissed the charges against his two brothers.
“There are no allegations in the FIR to suggest that Shakir-ul-Hassan’s brothers (petitioners No.2 and 3) were privy to or abetted the sexual relationship. Continuing prosecution against them would be an abuse of process.”
Finally, the judge explained why bail could not be granted at this stage:
“Granting bail to Shakir-ul-Hassan at this stage would not only adversely affect the investigation but also have a discouraging effect upon the prosecutrix, who appears to have fought against all odds to seek justice.”
