VIKRANT KOTWAL vs UT OF J AND K TH. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, SAMBA AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: Bail App No. 156/2026
Reserved on : 01.09.2026
Pronounced on : 11.09.2026
Uploaded on : 11 .09.2026
Vikrant Kotwal
…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. K. Nirmal Kotwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
R.S.Isher, Advocate
Vs.
U.T.of J&K and another
…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy.AG
Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks bail in
anticipation of his arrest in FIR No. 178/2026, registered at Police
Station Samba, for offences punishable under Sections 69, 83, 88 and
115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that the
aforesaid FIR came to be registered on the basis of the complaint
made by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “prosecutrix”).
The contents of the complaint are as under:-
“..She is posted at P/S Samba and she came into contact with
PSI Vikrant Kotwal in September 2024 while both of us were
posted at P/S Samba. PSI Vikrant proposed marriage to me and
on the basis of his repeated assurance; we entered into a live-in
Bail App 156/2026 Page 1 of 18
relationship and stayed together openly as husband and wife for
several months. During this period, I became pregnant twice.
Both times, he (non-complainant) persuaded me to terminate
the pregnancies by assuring me that we would marry soon.
Thereafter, he made me consume unwanted-pills regularly.
Later, I discovered that he was already married, a fact he had
deliberately concealed from me. Despite this, he continued
assuring me that he did not wish to live with his wife and only
wanted to marry me. Whenever, I raised the issue of marriage,
he kept postponing it with different excuses. He also physically
assaulted me when I threatened to report the matter to higher
authorities. Despite repeated promises, he never married me and
continued maintaining a physical and emotional relationship
with me.
Recently, I again became pregnant. The moment I
informed him and shared the pregnancy report. He blocked me
from everywhere and completely abandoned me. He is now
denying the relationship and refusing all responsibility. She
further stated that she mentally and emotionally shattered due to
his conduct. I humbly request your kind intervention, a proper
inquiry into his actions, and appropriate legal and
departmental/under law action against him, so that I may
receive justice, protection, and support C. Enquiry: During the
course of enquiry, E/O called the complainant namely Nancy
Devi L/Ct. No. 214 of P/S Samba and recorded her statement
which are re-produced as under:-
Statement of Nancy Devi D/o Dhian Singh R/o Village
Khabbal Tehsil & District Samba, Occupation employee Lady
Constable Posted 1st Women Battalion Chhani Himmat
Jammu, presently posted at Police Station Samba. Age 25
years. Ph. No. 8825076561.
The above mentioned victim during the course of inquiry
stated that, I'm residing above mentioned Address, and
presently posted as Lady Constable at Police Station Samba,
want to respectfully state that first I came into contact with PSI
Vikrant Kotwal in September 2024 when both of us were
posted at Police Station Samba. Our interaction started through
Instagram where we followed each other. Before that also, we
already knew each other normally in P/S Samba.
Thereafter, we started meeting each other, on 8 October
2024, Vikrant was posted as an In-charge at Police Post Rakh
Amb Talli, he called me to meet him, and for the first time we
met near the Mansar side while sitting in the car. We talked for
a long time, and after that we continued meeting regularly. We
liked each other's behavior and became emotionally attached.
On 11 April, it was Vikrant's birthday, so we went out
toward the Pathankot side, even further ahead of Pathankot.
While roaming around there, it became evening. After that, we
bought a cake from Pathankot and stayed overnight at hotel
Zone by The Park Pathankot. We cut the cake there in the room
itself. Then he told me, "Let's go to the bar and enjoy a little,"
but I refused to go to the bar. So he ordered non-vegetarian
Bail App 156/2026 Page 2 of 18
food along with beer for me and whisky for himself inside the
room. After cutting the cake, he told me that he did not have
any friends with him and asked me to give him company. He
gave me beer while he drank whisky. We both sat there and
drank. As far as I remember, I drank about one bottle of beer, so
I was also intoxicated, and he was intoxicated too. After that, I
remember there was physical touch between us, and that day
was the first time we became completely physical and intimate
with each other. The next day, we returned home.
After that, he started telling me that we would get
married soon and that he would never betray me in life.
Thereafter, he proposed marriage to me. When he said that we
should get married, I asked him when we should proceed so
that I could speak to my family. However, from that point
onward, he kept giving me dates after dates for the marriage,
first saying after two or three months, then January, then
February and he continued postponing the matter month after
month. During this period, we started living together. From
around November onwards, we began sharing a room together.
We slept in the same room and lived together like husband and
wife. Except for duty hours, we remained together day and
night. After duty hours, I used to stay with him in his room,
cook food for him, and take care of everything as a wife would.
He kept me with him openly before everyone.
During this relationship, I became pregnant twice. When
I conceived for the first time, I informed him clearly. He
brought medicines for termination of pregnancy and persuaded
me to terminate it by saying that it was not the right time and
that we would properly plan children after marriage, which
according to him was going to happen very soon. Thereafter, I
again became pregnant, and once again he repeated the same
conduct by arranging medicines and convincing me that it was
not the right time. Meanwhile, we continued living together
normally. Gradually, people around us started talking about our
relationship. At that point, he stopped me from speaking about
our relationship to my colleagues and told me that people did
not want us to stay together. He repeatedly told me that I only
needed to trust him because he considered himself my husband.
Such was my trust in him that his phone used to remain with me
all the time. He had blocked his wife everywhere. It was only
when his wife, out of frustration, changed her True Caller name
to "Anu Vikrant Kotwal" that I became suspicious and
questioned him about her identity. Only then, after being
confronted, he admitted to me that he was married. Even after
admitting this fact, he continuously told me that he did not
share a good relationship with his wife. He said that she
harassed his mother, never cared for his family, never cooked
for them, and that he did not want to continue living with her.
By that time, however, a lot had already happened,
including my two miscarriages caused because of his
assurances. Thereafter also, he continued staying with me. I
trusted him completely. Around that time, since he had not
Bail App 156/2026 Page 3 of 18
gone home for almost a year, his family members became
suspicious and when they came to Samba and called him, he
refused to meet them and said, "you go back home. I don't want
to meet you." At that point, I told him that I would approach
higher authorities and inform the IGP that I had been deceived.
On hearing this, he physically assaulted me. He slapped me
twice, threw away the keys of my Scooty, pushed me inside the
room, and prevented me from leaving.
After realizing what he had done, he picked up a beer
bottle lying nearby and struck it on his own head, causing
bleeding injuries to himself. Thereafter, when the matter spread
among people and everyone came to know about the incident,
he got himself in Government District Hospital Samba. His
family members were informed and they came and took him
away from the hospital. Even at that time, he secretly called me
from the hospital washroom and assured me that we were
together and that he was only going home for few days due to
his condition. Even after reaching home, he remained in contact
with me through calls and messages. However, after four days,
he permanently stopped communicating with me.
Whenever I contacted his family, they falsely informed
me that he had suffered a brain hemorrhage, and was being
taken to Chandigarh. Lies after lies were told to me. When his
mother came to know about our relationship, she even asked me
how much money I would require to step back from the
relationship. Thereafter, people started spreading rumors that I
had taken money from him and therefore had not taken any
action against him. However, the truth is that our relationship
had never ended. After going home, he got himself transferred
to District Jammu. Even while going there, he did not properly
meet me because according to him, his family had forbidden
him from meeting me.
Despite all this, after joining at Nawababad Police
Station he again contacted me on the very first day of duty and
assured me that all rumors were false, that he only wanted to
marry me, and that he wanted to stay with me alone. He
repeatedly stated that he had no relationship with his wife and
did not want any future with her. Thereafter, he resumed
meeting me continuously. His routine became such that he used
to spend two nights with me and one night at home. We
travelled together, spent time together everywhere, and
continued our relationship normally.
When his transfer later took place to DKR Range, Doda,
he still continued the relationship. Around Shivratri, we
observed fast together, visited a temple together, and in front of
God he assured me there also that he would marry me formally
very soon. Whenever, I questioned him honestly and told him
that if he wanted to stay with his wife and family then I would
step back, he repeatedly insisted that he only wanted to live
with me and not with her. Even after joining district Doda,
whenever he came on leave or for court attendance, he stayed
with me regularly. Whenever I raised the issue of marriage, he
Bail App 156/2026 Page 4 of 18
kept postponing it and giving excuses. At one point, I asked
him to marry me in Arya Samaj Mandir. However, he refused
by saying that if there was documentary proof of marriage, his
wife could use it to file a case of bigamy against us and affect
his promotion.
Thereafter, I suggested marriage in a temple. He again
avoided it by saying he did not get sufficient leave and that
whenever he came to meet me, I only spoke about marriage
instead of spending peaceful time with him.
On 10 April, around my birthday, we even left for Arya
Samaj Mandir at Kathua along with my sister. However, after
reaching there, he showed me on Google that the temple had
closed. Instead, he took me to Patnitop, then to Doda and
Bhaderwah where we stayed together for 4 days before
returning. Even after all this, he continued assuring me that he
only wanted to stay with me and not with his wife and we will
soon get marry formally.
Then on 3 May, Vikrant came to meet me from Doda. I
told him, "Let's get married in a temple." He said that it would
get late and that he would reach by around 8 pm. I replied, "It's
okay, then we can call a Pandit here." He agreed and said, "Call
the Pandit." After that, we called a Pandit in the morning and
got married on the morning of 4 May. After marriage Vikrant
now tells me that he needs 4 years' time to inform his family.
When I refused to give him that much time, he then said, "Give
me 1 year. My promotion is due, and after that I will make
everything right and keep you with me officially as my wife."
Thereafter also, he continued staying with me physically and
emotionally. On 7 May also, he stayed with me during the
night. On morning 8 May, he went home. During this time, he
again assured me that after one year he would inform his family
and formally settle everything.
However, thereafter my health deteriorated and I
underwent medical testing, through which I came to know that I
was pregnant again. The moment I sent him the pregnancy
report, he blocked me from everywhere. His wife even
contacted me asking whether we were still in touch. However,
before his family, he completely denied our relationship and
even swore falsely upon his parents that he had no connection
with me. Despite my repeated attempts to contact him, he has
completely refused to speak to me. I sent him the pregnancy
reports, but he ignored everything and has now started behaving
as if none of these incidents, meetings, or promises ever
happened.
Today I am left completely alone with this pregnancy. I
have heard many rumors that I took money from him and
therefore did not take any action, whereas the truth is that our
relationship had never ended. Even till 7 May, he was
continuously telling me that he loved only me and wanted to
spend his life with me. Despite my repeated attempts to contact
him, he has now clearly refused to maintain any relationship
with me and is telling me that I may do whatever I want and
Bail App 156/2026 Page 5 of 18
approach any authority I wish, as he no longer wishes to keep
any relation with me.
In this manner, PSI. Vikrant Kotwal has completely
ruined and devastated my life. By giving me false promises of
marriage, he continued to sexually exploit me. On two earlier
occasions, he also made me undergo miscarriage/abortion, and
now for the third time, I am carrying his child again.
I seek justice and desire legal action against Vikrant
Kotwal.”
3. It appears that the aforesaid complaint was made by the prosecutrix
before the higher authorities of the Police Department, which led to
the holding of a fact-finding inquiry by the Inquiry Officer
(Additional SP, Samba). It also appears that during the course of the
inquiry, a questionnaire was served upon the petitioner-accused, and
he responded to the said questionnaire. The Inquiry Officer also
obtained the photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and
the prosecutrix and he also recorded the statement of the Pandit who
had solemnized their marriage. After conducting the inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer recommended that the matter requires proper
investigation, as, according to the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner,
despite being a married person, duped the prosecutrix on false
assurances and promises of marriage and did not solemnize a real
marriage with her. It was recommended by the Inquiry Officer that a
detailed investigation be conducted and, on the basis of this
recommendation, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered.
4. It has been contended by the petitioner that the prosecution case itself
reveals that the allegations arose out of a prolonged relationship
between two adults who remained in a consensual relationship for
several months. It has been submitted that, even as per the prosecution
case, despite the prosecutrix coming to know about the marital status
Bail App 156/2026 Page 6 of 18
of the petitioner, she continued to maintain her relationship with the
petitioner; therefore, it is not a case where the consent of the
prosecutrix was obtained under misconception of facts.
5. It appears that, prior to approaching this Court, the petitioner had
approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, for
grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest, but the application came to
be dismissed by the said Court in terms of order dated 23.07.2026.
Learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the application of the
petitioner, has observed that the material on record suggests that the
petitioner had extended promises of marriage to the prosecutrix time
and again, which he had failed to fulfil, and that he had extracted
sexual favours from her on the assurance that he would enter into
wedlock with her without fulfilling these promises. Thus, according to
the learned Sessions Judge, once there was material supporting the
allegations levelled in the FIR and the investigation was still at its
inception, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner
did not deserve the concession of bail.
6. It has been contended by the petitioner that the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law, as the said Court has
been swayed by the seriousness of the allegations made against the
petitioner, without considering that there is no material to substantiate
the allegations.
7. The respondent-State as well as the prosecutrix have contested the bail
application and they have also filed their respective versions.
8. The respondent-State, after narrating the allegations made in the FIR
against the petitioner and the facts revealed during the course of the
Bail App 156/2026 Page 7 of 18
departmental inquiry, has contended that the petitioner is evading his
arrest and is presently absconding. It has been contended that the
petitioner has committed a serious offence and, if he is enlarged on
bail, there is a reasonable apprehension that he would tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
9. Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix), in her reply to the bail application,
after narrating the allegations levelled by her in the FIR, has submitted
that, right from the day of registration of the FIR, the police agency
has not taken any action against the petitioner and that he is being
continuously shielded by his own department. It has been contended
that the petitioner has committed a very serious offence and, having
regard to the fact that the petitioner is a police official who is
supposed to be a protector of law, his offence becomes all the more
grave in nature.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case including the case diary.
11. So far as the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are
concerned, the same have been laid down by the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 . The Court, while observing that
the question whether bail should be granted or not depends for its
answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of
which must enter into the judicial verdict, held as under:-
“In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation
appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of
justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure
and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction
Bail App 156/2026 Page 8 of 18
for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest
would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears
likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking
advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from
justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of
these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it
cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail
cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to
be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail
must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will
abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous
to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the
court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature
and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the
events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable
possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the
trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be
tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the
state" are some of the considerations which the court has to
keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory
bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out
in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh , which, though, was a case
under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is
as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the
egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking
anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption
of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his
freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may
think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if
arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail”.
Bail App 156/2026 Page 9 of 18
12. Again the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2020(5) SCC 1 has
held that the Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations
such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the
applicant and the facts of the case while assessing whether to grant
anticipatory bail or refusing it. It has been held that whether to grant
or not is a matter of discretion and that anticipatory bail can be
granted depending upon the conduct and behaviour of the accused.
13. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, let us now advert to the
facts of the present case. It has been vehemently contended by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, when the contents of
the impugned FIR are read as a whole, it becomes clear that the
physical relationship, if any, between the petitioner and the
prosecutrix was consensual in nature and that there was no fraud or
deception on the part of the petitioner while obtaining her consent for
the physical relationship. On this ground, it is being contended that,
even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true at their
face value, it appears to be a case of false implication of the petitioner;
hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
14. There is no doubt about the fact that the offences for which the
petitioner has been booked are grave in nature, and there is no quarrel
with the proposition of law that the gravity of the offence and the
severity of punishment are important considerations while considering
a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused. However, a prima
facie view of the genuineness of the charge against the accused is a
factor which is always required to be considered.
Bail App 156/2026 Page 10 of 18
15. In the above context, if we have a look at the allegations made in the
FIR, the prosecutrix is stated to have come into contact with the
petitioner while both of them were posted at Police Station, Samba, in
the month of September, 2024. According to the prosecutrix, the
petitioner extended a proposal of marriage to her and, on the basis of
his repeated assurances, they entered into a live-in relationship and
stayed openly together as husband and wife for several months, during
which she became pregnant twice and, on both occasions, she was
persuaded by the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. It is stated in
the FIR that the prosecutrix later discovered that the petitioner was
already married, a fact which he had concealed from her. She goes on
to state that, despite knowing this fact, the petitioner continued to
extend assurances to her that he would marry her, but kept on
postponing the marriage on different pretexts, as a result of which the
prosecutrix continued to maintain a physical and emotional
relationship with the petitioner and again became pregnant. It is
mentioned by the prosecutrix in the FIR that, when she confronted the
petitioner about his marital status, he admitted that he is a married
person, but at the same time told her that he does not want to live with
his wife and continued to stay with the prosecutrix. She further
alleged that the family members of the petitioner came to Samba, but
he refused to meet them. She has further alleged that even the mother
of the petitioner came to know about their relationship and told her to
back out and offered her money for the said purpose.
16. After narrating the events with regard to the continuation of their
relationship even after coming to know about the marital status of the
Bail App 156/2026 Page 11 of 18
petitioner, the prosecutrix has stated that, on 03.05.2025, they called a
Pandit and got married in the morning of 04.05.2025. It is further
stated that, when she came to know about her third pregnancy, she
disclosed this fact to the petitioner, upon which the petitioner blocked
her. She further stated that even the wife of the petitioner was in touch
with her. The prosecutrix further alleged that, despite her repeated
attempts to contact the petitioner, he refused to maintain the
relationship with her.
17. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix recorded her
statement before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023.
In her statement recorded before the Magistrate, the prosecutrix
reiterated and reaffirmed the allegations made by her in the FIR. She
also produced photographs of her marriage with the petitioner, which,
according to her, had taken place on 07.05.2025.
18. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it does appear that, initially,
the prosecutrix was not aware of the marital status of the petitioner
and the two of them started liking each other and entered into a
physical relationship. The prosecutrix conceived twice during this
period and, on both occasions, she was persuaded to terminate the
pregnancy. However, the matter does not end here. The prosecutrix,
even after coming to know that the petitioner was a married person
having two children, continued to have a relationship with him. She
conceived for the third time. Despite being an educated, major girl
aged about 25 years working in the Police Department, she entered
into wedlock with the petitioner, knowing fully well that he was
already a married person and that his marriage with her was not valid
Bail App 156/2026 Page 12 of 18
in the eyes of law. It is not a case where the petitioner, after
concealing his marital status, induced the prosecutrix into a wedlock;
rather, it is a case where both of them were aware that the petitioner
was a married person and that his second marriage during the
subsistence of his first marriage was not valid. Thus, prima facie it can
be stated that while the petitioner developed physical relationship with
the prosecutrix he did not obtain her consent on the belief that her
marriage with the petitioner is valid.
19. In the light of the aforesaid sequence of events, the question arises
whether there is material on record to support the allegations of the
prosecutrix that her consent for physical relationship was obtained
under misconception of fact. In this regard, the legal position has been
analyzed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Danu Khare
v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398 , in the light of the facts
of the said case, in the following manner:-
“ 30. It may be also noted that there may be occasions where a
promise to marry was made initially but for various reasons, a
person may not be able to keep the promise to marry. If such
promise is not made from the very beginning with the ulterior
motive to deceive her, it cannot be saidto be a false promise to
attract the penal provisions of Section 375 IPC, punishable
under Section 376 IPC.
31. In the present case, even assuming that the appellant had
made the promise since 2008 when they met for the first time,
the fact that they remained unmarried for a long period till
2017 without there being any protest or objection by the
complainant, does not indicate the intention at the initial stage
itself to make the promise falsely to marry the complainant.
Making an allegation of non-fulfilment of promise to marry
without undue delay by the promisee would, on the other hand,
be an indicator of a false promise being made from the initial
stage. In the present case, what is not in dispute is that the
physical relationship between the appellant and the
complainant continued for a long period of about a decade and
as such it is difficult to infer that the appellant had made a false
promise since the initial stage and continued to make false
Bail App 156/2026 Page 13 of 18
promises to marry her on the basis of which she also continued
to have physical relationship with him.
32. In the present case, the nature of relationship between the
appellant and the complainant can be characterised by the
following attributes:
32.1. The appellant and the complainant were acquainted with
each other since 2008. The complainant herself admits that the
appellant has been in physical relationship since then till 2017
without protest in spite of alleging that the appellant had done
so without her consent.
32.2. The physical relationship was going on routinely. But the
complainant in her complaint states that after she got a rented
room in Shirvane, Nerul Sector 1, Navi Mumbai, in December,
2010, the appellant used to come every day and had sexual
intercourse every day, though without her consent and by
giving false promise of marriage.
32.3. The complainant does not appear to be a naive and
gullible woman who was susceptible to deceit while
maintaining physical relationship with the appellant and the
allegation of false promise surfaced only when the appellant
refused to provide further financial and other assistance.
|
32.4. The conduct of the complainant clearly shows that she is
a mature person clearly capable of understanding the
consequences of her acts and she was fully aware of the kind of
illicit relationship she was maintaining with a married person.
32.5. The complainant was fully aware that the appellant was
already married and had two wives, though one of them was
not keeping well.
33. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-
marital affair during the aforesaid period without any
insistence by the complainant for getting married to the
appellant. The fact that the complainant continued to have a
physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on
marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise
made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates
that the relationship was a consensual one.
34. In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical
relationship between the partners without protest and insistence
by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a
consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on
false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based
on misconception of fact.
Bail App 156/2026 Page 14 of 18
35. Moreover, even if it is assumed that a false promise of
marriage was made to the complainant initially by the
appellant, even though no such cogent evidence has been
brought on record before us to that effect, the fact that the
relationship continued for nine long years, would render the
plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was
under misconception of fact that the Appellant would marry her
implausible. Consequently, the criminal liability attached to
such false promise would be diluted after such a long passage
of time and in light of the fact that no protest was registered by
the complainant during all those years. Such a prolonged
continuation of physical relationship without demurral or
remonstration by the female partner, in effect takes out the sting
of criminal culpability and neutralises it.
36. It will be very difficult to assume that the complainant, who
is otherwise a mature person with two grown up children, was
unable to discover the deceitful behaviour of the appellant who
continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long
period on the promise of marriage. Any such mendacious act of
the appellant would have been exposed sooner without having
to wait for nine years.
37. The inference one can draw under the circumstances is
that there was no such false promise made to the complainant
by the appellant of marriage by continuing to have physical
relationship so as to bring this act within the province of
Section 376 IPC and therefore, there was no vitiation of
consent under misconception of fact.
38. Further, it appears that discontinuance of financial support
to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the
promise to marry by the appellant appears to be the triggering
point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long
consensual relationship for about nine years.
39. In our view if criminality is to be attached to such
prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can
lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for
imputing criminality to such long term relationships after
turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a
belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent
criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing
criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of
which the Court must also be mindful.
40. It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this
Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that
there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going
on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought
to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
Bail App 156/2026 Page 15 of 18
20. From the above analysis of legal position on the issue it is clear that
once there is a prolonged association or physical relationship, it would
be inconceivable that the same would not be consensual in nature,
unless there are circumstances which indicate to the contrary. In the
present case, as already stated, the petitioner and the prosecutrix lived
together for a period of more than a year, during which period the
prosecutrix conceived as many as three times. During this
relationship, the prosecutrix came to know about the marital status of
the petitioner, but, in spite of knowing the same, she continued to
maintain relationship with the petitioner in the hope that he would
divorce his wife and enter into wedlock with her. The prosecutrix, as
per her own statement, despite knowing that the petitioner had a
family, including two children, and that his mother and wife were not
in favour of his divorce from his wife, continued to maintain the
relationship with the petitioner and entered into a marriage which, to
her own knowledge, was not valid in law. From these circumstances,
it can prima facie be inferred that her relationship with the petitioner
was consensual in nature. Although initially she may not have been
aware of the marital status of the petitioner, her subsequent conduct of
continuing the relationship with him despite knowing his marital
status gives rise to an inference that her relationship with the
petitioner was not based upon a misconception of fact.
21. Although it would be premature for this Court to deeply analyze the
material collected by the Investigating Agency in support of its case
against the petitioner, yet, for the limited purpose of deciding this
application, it does appear that there is force in the contention of the
Bail App 156/2026 Page 16 of 18
petitioner that the promise of marriage by a married man to a woman
is improbable and that it is highly unlikely that an unmarried woman
would give her consent to having a sexual relationship with a married
man by believing his promise of marriage. This Court would not like
to comment upon the merits of the allegations made by the
prosecutrix; however, the material on record does suggest that the
prosecutrix and the petitioner were deeply in love with each other,
which resulted in sexual intercourse between the two.
22. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, particularly keeping in
view the fact that the prosecutrix continued her relationship with the
petitioner despite knowing his marital status, her conduct in levelling
allegations on account of a false promise of marriage against the
petitioner creates a genuine doubt, which the Investigating Agency
will have to address and answer during the course of investigation of
the case, so as to ascertain whether the ingredients of cheating are
made out in the present case.
23. So far as the contention of the Investigating Agency that the petitioner
is not cooperating with the investigation of the case is concerned, the
same is belied by the stand of the police department, inasmuch as the
petitioner has submitted himself before the Inquiry Officer and has
answered the questionnaire administered to him. It is not the case of
the police department that the petitioner is not attending his duties;
therefore, the very assertion of the Investigating Agency that the
petitioner is absconding cannot be believed. In any case, the
petitioner, being an employee of the police department, is not only
under the investigative control of the said department but he is also
Bail App 156/2026 Page 17 of 18
subject to its disciplinary control. It is always open to the police
department to take coercive measures against the petitioner so as to
secure his attendance for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the
possibility of abscondence of the petitioner is minimal.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and it is directed that
the petitioner be admitted to bail in the event of his arrest in the
aforesaid FIR, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a personal bond of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer
concerned.
(ii) That the petitioner shall remain available before the
Investigating Officer and shall appear before him as and when
required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid
case.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, attempt to
thwart the process of investigation or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
(iv) That the petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the prior
permission of the Investigating Officer.
(v) That in the event the Investigating Agency notices any violation
of any of the conditions imposed upon the petitioner; the
Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.
25. The case diary produced by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is
returned to him in the open Court.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Jammu
11.09.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes
Whether order is reportable ? Yes
MADAN LAL VERMA
2026.09.11 17:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Bail App 156/2026 Page 18 of 18