J&K&L High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Personnel In POCSO Case After Complainant Marries Him, Drops Allegations

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an Army personnel accused in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, after the prosecutrix stated that she was in a consensual relationship with him, had married him after attaining majority, and did not wish to pursue the case.The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR registered at Women Police Station, Kathua, for offences under Sections 4, 6, 12 and 15 of the POCSO Act and Sections 64, 65, 75, 351 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.A Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while allowing the petition, observed, “... The admitted position emerging from the record is that the prosecutrix-private respondent, in her statement before the Magistrate, has clearly stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR against him and his brother on the advice of the police officials and her relatives. She also stated that she is married to the petitioner now and wanted to live with him.”The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, a resident of Basantpur, Kathua and serving in the Indian Army, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was registered against him on the complaint of respondent No. 2.In her complaint lodged on 27 October 2025, the prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner had developed a relationship with her, showed her pornographic videos, established sexual relations with her over a period of three years, and threatened to circulate her nude photographs on social media. She also alleged that the petitioner's brother contacted her and sought sexual favours.Based on these allegations, FIR came to be registered under serious offences under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.During the course of investigation, however, the prosecutrix submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, stating that her earlier statement was not based on true facts and that she had been influenced and pressurised by police officials.She also filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court stating that she had now attained majority and wished to marry the petitioner.Subsequently, her statement was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, where she stated that she had been in love with the petitioner for three years, had lodged the FIR after being influenced by relatives and police officials, and had since married the petitioner. She categorically stated that she did not want any legal action against him.The trial court declined anticipatory bail primarily in view of the bar contained in Section 482(4) of the BNSS, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.The High Court examined the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Magistrate and noted that she had unequivocally stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR under outside influence.The Court observed that the prosecutrix had further stated that she was now married to the petitioner and wished to reside with him. In the Court's words, “.. She was in love with the petitioner for three years. Since for one month, petitioner did not pick her calls, she thought that he had cheated her.”The Court also took note of the fact that the prosecutrix had no objection to grant of bail.Justice Sekhri held that in view of the admitted position emerging from the record and the prosecutrix's categorical statement before the Magistrate, the petitioner was entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. The Court accordingly observed, “Since prosecutrix has no objection to the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner, present application is allowed.”The High Court thus allowed the bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond of ₹25,000 and a personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.The grant of bail was made subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or threaten witnesses, shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court, and shall regularly appear before the trial court.Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. UT of J&K and AnotherCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 219AppearancesPetitioner: Amit Gupta, AdvocateRespondent No. 1: Suneel Malhotra, Government AdvocateRespondent No. 2: Abhishek Gupta, AdvocateClick here to read/download Judgment

J&K&L High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Personnel In POCSO Case After Complainant Marries Him, Drops Allegations

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

J&K&L High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Personnel In POCSO Case After Complainant Marries Him, Drops Allegations

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers