J&K&L High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Rape On False Promise Of Marriage, His Mother For Alleged Abetment

Justice M. A. Chowdhary took into account the complainant's own claim of being in a relationship with the main accused for about one-and-a-half years and the failure of their efforts to culminate in marriage because their families did not agree to the union. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the trial.

The Court was hearing an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the Sessions Court, Poonch's order dated February 10, 2026, which had rejected the applicants' plea for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 60/2025 registered at Police Station Mandi, Poonch, under Sections 49 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Justice Chowdhary observed that, considering the complainant's account of the relationship and the circumstances in which the proposed marriage failed, both applicants were entitled to protection from arrest, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations.

According to the complaint, the woman and Ikram Tahir had been in a relationship for approximately one-and-a-half years. She alleged that Tahir had repeatedly established sexual relations with her on the false promise of marriage and assured her that he would marry her when her parents proposed her marriage with another person.

The complainant alleged that Tahir subsequently began avoiding her and severed contact. When her marriage was fixed with another person and wedding cards had been distributed, he allegedly contacted her and asked her to meet him at Poonch Bus Stand on June 18, 2025, for marriage. She claimed that he did not turn up, but received calls from his mother, Saira Khatoon, who allegedly told her that she and her son were coming to take her for marriage and asked her to remain at the Women Cell.

The complainant was subsequently taken to the One Stop Centre, Poonch, and later handed over to her parents. She alleged that she had been sexually exploited on the pretext of marriage and that her parents had incurred unnecessary expenses in connection with the proposed marriage. An FIR was registered, and the applicants' anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, Poonch, on February 10, 2026.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the main accused had repeatedly sexually exploited the complainant on the false promise of marriage. It contended that the allegations were serious and that there was a possibility of evidence being tampered with or the applicants evading the process of law.

The applicants, on the other hand, claimed that they had been falsely implicated to harass them and malign their family's reputation. They also relied on the delay between the alleged occurrence on June 18, 2025, and registration of the FIR on July 12, 2025.

The High Court considered the circumstances of the relationship as described in the complaint and the material placed before it. It noted that the complainant herself claimed to have been in a relationship with Tahir for about one-and-a-half years and that their efforts to marry did not succeed because their families did not agree to the union.

The Court observed,

“On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the consensual relationship claimed by the complainant herself and the failure of the endeavor of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant to mature their relationship, for the reason that their families did not agree to the marriage…”

The Court held that these circumstances, considered alongside the allegations and the prosecution's objections, justified granting anticipatory bail to Tahir and his mother, who was alleged to have abetted the commission of the offence.

It expressly clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice any subsequent trial.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 240, which discussed the constitutional dimension of anticipatory bail and its connection with personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court's observation that anticipatory bail is intended to provide conditional protection against arrest and confinement.

It also relied on Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 6 SCALE 461, which identified the relevant considerations for deciding anticipatory bail applications involving serious offences. These include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of tampering with evidence or repeating the offence, the likelihood of the accused becoming unavailable, and the possibility of obstructing the proceedings.

Applying these principles, the High Court considered the nature of the allegations, the objections raised by the prosecution and the circumstances of the relationship before concluding that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

The Court observed that, having regard to the Supreme Court's decisions and the facts of the case, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, and held that the interim protection already granted to the applicants should be made absolute.

Allowing the application, the High Court made the interim anticipatory bail granted to both applicants absolute. It directed that, in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each to the satisfaction of the concerned Station House Officer.

The applicants were directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, not leave Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the concerned SHO during the investigation, and refrain from frustrating the investigation or tampering with prosecution evidence.