IKRAM TAHIR AND ANOTHER vs UT OF J AND K TH. INCHARGE POLICE STATION, MANDI POONCH AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

Bail App. No.94/2026
Reserved on: 21.10.2026
Pronounced on: 23.10.2026.
Uploaded on: 23.10.2026
Operative part or full judgment: Full

1. Ikram Tahir (23 years)
S/O Mohd Tahir
2. Saira Khatoon (44 years)
W/O Mohd Tahir
Both R/O Village Banola,
Tehsil Mendhar
District Poonch …Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mohd Avais Chowdhary, Adv.

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
through Incharge Police Station Mandi,
Poonch.
2. Halima Kouser,
D/O Mukhtar Ahmed,
R/O Gagrian Maidan,
Mandi,
District Poonch …Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA vice
Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA for R-1.
None for R-2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT
1. The applicants, through the medium of this application, seek grant of
bail, in anticipation of their arrest, in a case registered vide FIR No. 60/2025
on 12.07.2025, at Police Station Mandi, for the commission of offences,
punishable under Sections 49 & 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, “BNS”), asserting, therein, that they have been falsely implicated, in the
case, by the complainant/respondent no.2, by leveling false allegations. The
applicants have also called in question the order dated 10.02.2026, passed by

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 1 of 8

the Sessions Court, Poonch, whereby, their application, for grant of
anticipatory bail, came to be rejected.
2. Brief facts, as set up, which led to the filing of this application are
that on 24.01.2024, respondent no.2/complainant namely Haleema Kouser
D/O Mukhtar Ahmed R/O Gagrian, Tehsil Mandi District Reasi, lodged a
written application/complaint against some persons including the petitioners,
herein, in Police Station Mandi, stating therein that she and petitioner no.1
Ikram Tahir, had been in relationship for about one and a half years; that
petitioner no.1 exploited her physically on the pretext/false promise of
marriage; that petitioner no.1 used to come to her house between November
2024 and June 2025 and developed sexual relations on multiple times; that,
when on 20.02.2025, her parents proposed her marriage with another boy, she
informed petitioner no.1 about the same, who assured the complainant that
only he will marry her; that subsequently, he deliberately started avoiding her
and finally severed all links; however, when the marriage of the complainant
was fixed for 26.06.2025 and wedding cards were already distributed, the
petitioner no.1, all of a sudden, contacted the complainant through phone and
asked her to meet him at Poonch Bus Stand on 18.06.2025 for marriage; that
when she went there on the proposed date, he was not there, however, she got
a number of calls from petitioner no.2, that she along with her son were
coming to take her for marriage and was asked to stay at Women Cell and not
to return home; that after waiting for a long time at Women Cell, she was sent
to One Stop Centre, Poonch under legal procedure, where she was kept for
about 9+3 days and finally was handed over to her parents.
3. In this backdrop, complainant approached Police Station Mandi
alleging that she was sexually assaulted under the pretext of false promise of

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 2 of 8

marriage, her parents were made to bear unnecessary expenses in the name of
marriage, that, on the basis of this complaint, FIR No.60/2025 came to be
lodged at P/S Mandi and investigation was set in motion; that the petitioners
filed application U/S 482 BNSS, for grant of bail, in anticipation of arrest, in
their favour, before the Sessions Court, Poonch, who, vide, its order dated
10.02.2026, rejected the same. It is, in this backdrop, the petitioners have
approached this court seeking bail, in anticipation of their arrest, in case, FIR
No.60/2025, registered at P/S Mandi, Poonch, for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 49 & 64 BNS.
4. Pursuant to notice, objections stand filed on behalf of respondent
No.1-SHO, P/S Mandi, stating therein that during the course of investigation,
it was established that about one and a half years ago, complainant/victim
came into contact with petitioner no.1, developed a relationship; that during
the course of relationship, petitioner no.1 assured complainant that he would
marry her; that on one occasion, petitioner no.1 along with his family
members came to the residence of the complainant for seeking her hand in
marriage, however, his proposal was not accepted by the family of the
complainant; that, after some days, petitioner no.1 again came in the dark, and
with consent, successfully coaxed the complainant to have intercourse with
him and also on two-three more occasions, when there was no one present in
the house of the complainant; that when complainant asked the petitioner no.1
to materialize his promise, he reneged and betrayed her trust; that during the
course of investigation, offence U/S 69 BNS stands established against
petitioner no.1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, while arguing the case
and seeking the applicants’ enlargement on bail, urges that the applicants are

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 3 of 8

accused of having committed offences punishable U/Ss 49 and 64 BNS, but
the fact of the matter is that during the course of investigation, none of these
offences was proved against the petitioners; that the impugned FIR has been
lodged by respondent no.2 only to harass the petitioners and to malign the
reputation of their family; that there is a delay in lodging the FIR as the same
was lodged on 12.07.2025, whereas the occurrence was alleged to have taken
place on 18.06.2025. Lastly, it is prayed that the application be allowed and
they be admitted to bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in
‘Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency’ reported as AIR
ONLINE 2021 SC 246 .

6. Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1, ex-adverso, opposed the present application and contended that the
applicants do not deserve the concession of bail, as they are involved in
serious offences; that petitioner no.1 has committed repeated acts of sexual
exploitation of the victim on the false promise of marriage; that the petitioners
cannot seek grant of bail in anticipation of their arrest as a matter of right and
considering the seriousness of allegations, possibility of tampering with
evidence and likelihood of fleeing from justice, their application be rejected;
that for offence U/S 64 BNS, of which the applicant no. 1 alleged to have
committed, is punishable, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life; for offence
U/S 49 BNS, the punishment provided is same as the punishment for offences
committed U/S 64 BNS for abetment, thus attracts the rigors of Section 437
CrPC, hence, the applicants, cannot be admitted to bail. He, further, argued
that the applicants, at the most, pray for direction to the trial court, for timely

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 4 of 8

conclusion of trial. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application be out-rightly
rejected and a direction be issued to the Investigating Officer to conclude the
investigation and present the charge sheet, before the competent court of law,
so that, the culprits be brought to justice.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available
on record and considered the matter.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has laid down
principles for consideration for grant of anticipatory bail and as to how to
exercise the power while granting bail.
(i) In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr , reported as
2016 (1) SCC (Crl) 240 , the Supreme Court while granting anticipatory bail,
for offence under Section 376 IPC held:
"Before we proceed further, we would like to discuss the law
relating to grant of anticipatory bail as has been developed
through judicial interpretative process. A judgment which
needs to be pointed out is a Constitution Bench Judgment of
this Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v.
State of Punjab [1980 2 SCC 565]. The Constitution Bench in
this case emphasized that provision of anticipatory bail
enshrined in Section 438 of the Code is conceptualized under
Article 21 of the Constitution which relates to personal liberty.
Therefore, such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of
Section 438 of the Code in light of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Code explains that an anticipatory bail is a
pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 5 of 8

whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the
accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall
be released on bail. The distinction between an ordinary order
of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the
former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from
the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of
arrest and is therefore, effective at the very moment of arrest. A
direction under Section 438 is therefore intended to confer
conditional immunity from the 'touch' or confinement
contemplated by Section 46 of the Code."
(ii) The Hon‟ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of bail in
anticipation of arrest, involving serious criminal offences, in case titled
" Ajwar Vs. Waseem & Anr " connected with other cases reported as 2024 (6)
Scale 461 in paragraph 26 held as under:
"26 . While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in
a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of accusations made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, to role attributed
to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the
probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the
offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts
of justice and overall desirability of releasing the accused on
bail."
9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly, the consensual relationship claimed by the complainant herself

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 6 of 8

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 and without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest the same
shall impact the trial, if any, of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that petitioner no.1, who is stated to be main accused and petitioner
no.2, being mother of the petitioner no.1, alleged to have abetted the
commission of offences punishable U/S 69 of BNS, are entitled to be admitted
to bail in anticipation of their arrest.
10. Having regard to the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases (supra) , the allegations and objections filed by the non-applicant
and considering the nature of the offences with which the applicants have been
charged of and also viewing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled to be
admitted to bail. It will be in the interest of justice if the interim bail granted to
the applicants is made absolute.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop of the matter, the law discussed
hereinabove and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the
bail application is allowed and it is provided that in the event of their arrest,
they shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions, that the
petitioners shall:
(i) furnish personal as well as surety bonds of an amount of Rs.
50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the SHO, Police Station

concerned.
(ii) fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer of the case as

and how directed;

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 7 of 8

(iii) not leave the UT of J&K, without permission from the SHO,

Police Station concerned, during investigation;
(iv) not, in any manner, attempt to frustrate the investigation or

tamper with the prosecution evidence; and
12. The bail application is, thus, allowed .
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
Jammu
23 .10.2026.
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No
Raj Kumar
2026.10.23 17:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Bail App No. 94/2026 Page 8 of 8