ABDUL MAJEED BHAT vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.S.H.O P/S KHAN SAHIB

S. No.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR



Bail App No. 15/2026
CrlM No.150/2026


Reserved on: 12.03.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Uploaded on: 15.05.2026

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced : Full


Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat, S/o Abdul Aziz Bhat
R/o Kremshora, Budgam, aged 50 years
Through his wife Rukhsana Yossof



…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, Advocate

Vs
Union Territory of J&K,
Through SHO Police Station, Khan Sahib,
Budgam

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy AG


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE


JUDGMENT


01. Through the medium of instant successive petition filed in terms of the
provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for short), bail on behalf of the
petitioner/accused in case FIR No. 10/2026 under Sections 64/62 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’ for short),
has been sought on the grounds inter alia that he is innocent and has not
committed the alleged offences. That he was arrested in the case FIR on
14.01.2026 and since then has been in custody. That the final report/challan
arising out of the case FIR in question was already filed before the Court of

Bail App 15/2025
2


learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Trial Court’ for short) and is pending disposal. That he is a doctor by
profession and was posted on the day of occurrence at Primary Health
Centre (PHC), Gurwaith, Khan Sahib, Budgam.
That on 14.01.2026, the complainant approached the PHC for her
medical examination and treatment, who was suffering from some
gynecological related infections and after she consented for the
examination by the petitioner-doctor, she, however, during her examination
doubted the bonafides of the petitioner as a doctor and under a mistaken
belief presumed the guilty intention of the petitioner and proceeded to
lodge a complaint against him with Police Station, Khan Sahib. That there
is complete contradiction in her first statement made through the
complaint/First Information Report and her subsequent statements given
during investigation of the case.
That in her First Information Report that led to the registration of
the case FIR in question, she alleged that during her medical examination,
the petitioner took her to another room, did not allow her sister-in-law to
accompany her, asked to remove clothes, tried to pull the robe of her
pyjama and attempted to commit rape upon her after allegedly grabbing her
breast, to which she resisted and escaped. That during investigation of the
case, the police concerned submitted a report on 22.01.2026 to the Court in
connection with his earlier bail application in which it was mentioned that
the petitioner/accused allegedly placed one hand on the chest of the victim
and another hand inside her private part, thereby projecting the allegation
of commission of rape in contradiction to her earlier statement of attempt to

Bail App 15/2025
3


rape.
That the learned Trial Court rejected the earlier bail application
of the petitioner/accused, upon being influenced by the seriousness of the
allegations against the petitioner being a doctor. That the petitioner/accused
is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty at the trial and as such, his
continued incarceration from the date of his arrest on 14.01.2026
tantamounts to his pre-trial conviction. That since the trial in the case FIR
is already going on before the learned Trial Court, as such, there is no need
of the petitioner/accused in custody. That the petitioner/accused as a
professional practitioner/doctor stands insulated under the statutory
exception relating to medical examination under Section 63 of BNS. That
the bail application deserves to be considered on account of the
Constitutional Test of “ Necessity of Custody ”. That no purpose is likely to
be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. That the petitioner being a
professional doctor is deeply rooted in the society and enjoys a great social
status. That there is no question of misusing the concession of bail by
tampering with the prosecution evidence or by absconding at the trial. That
the petitioner/accused is ready to abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this Court.
02. The respondent/UT of J&K through Police Station, Khan Sahib resisted the
bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner/accused is prima facie
involved in the commission of serious offences punishable under Sections
64/62 of BNS and as such does not deserve the concession of bail. That the
petitioner/accused is involved in the commission of rape which is grave
offence having serious social consequences. That the offences committed

Bail App 15/2025
4


by the petitioner/accused are punishable with sentence which may extend
to imprisonment for life. That under the threat of severity of the
punishment provided for the offences committed by the petitioner/accused,
he is likely to evade trial if released on bail.
That the accused being a Medical Practitioner was in a position
of trust and dominance over the victim who had approached him for
medical treatment, and therefore the offence is aggravated in nature
involving abuse of professional position. That the offence alleged against
the petitioner was committed while he was discharging his duties as a
Medical Officer, and thus involves gross abuse of professional trust and
fiduciary relationship. That the petitioner/accused, being a Medical
Practitioner posted at the Health Centre, was in a position of trust, authority
and dominance over the victim who had approached him for medical
treatment. That the rape is the fastest growing crime which is most terrible,
belligerent and atrocious in nature and undermines the dignity of the
women. That rape has been held to be more serious than Murder which
leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim. That given the violent
nature of the assault on the complainant, as evidenced by statements and
corroborating evidence, there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused
might attempt to intimidate or influence the complainant or witnesses if
released on bail. That the material collected during investigation clearly
reflects the active involvement of the accused in the commission of the
offences and the same is duly corroborated by statements recorded under
Section 183 BNSS. That the offences in which the above named accused is
involved are grave and heinous in nature. That the rape cases are on the rise

Bail App 15/2025
5


in the country which are predominantly against the women and have
adverse effect on the psyche of the woman making the rest of the life
traumatic and as such the release of the accused will have a deleterious
effect on the minds of the general public. That there is credible and cogent
evidence available viz-a-viz involvement of above named accused in the
commission of aforesaid offences. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 has laid down the
parameters governing grant of bail in non-bailable offences That further, in
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 178, it has been held that courts
must record reasons while granting bail in serious offences and gravity
cannot be ignored. That the Hon'ble Supreme court has laid down broad
principles/guidelines while considering the bail application under section
439 Cr.PC corresponding to section 483 BNSS more particularly in the
cases where offences are committed against women. That in Dipak
Shubhash Chandra Mehta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another 2012 (4) SCC 134 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
"the court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at
the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need
not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence.... "

That the accused has committed offences which are condemnable
and heinous in nature and are having serious ramifications as the same are
running contrary to the larger public interests. That bail has already been
denied to the petitioner/accused by the learned Trial Court.

Bail App 15/2025
6


03. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
04. Keeping in view the perusal of the instant successive bail petition, the
objections filed in rebuttal by the prosecution and the consideration of the
rival arguments advanced on both the sides, the Court is of the opinion that
it may meet the ends of justice in case the application is allowed and the
petitioner is admitted to bail in case FIR No. 10/2026 of Police Station
Khan Sahib, Budgam subject to some reasonable terms and conditions.

05. The brief facts of the prosecution case relevant for disposal of this
successive bail petition are that on 14.01.2026 a written complainant was
received by Police Station Khansahib from Mst. Dilshada Akhter W/O
Nazir Ahmad Najar R/O Gurwaith Kalan stating therein that she went to
Health Centre Gurwaith-Kalan for treatment. That during her examination
the on-duty Doctor asked her to enter in another room for treatment, the
complainant requested on-duty Doctor to allow her sister-in-law to
accompany her but the Doctor denied her request. That while examining
her, she was asked to put-off her clothes with evil intention to rape her.
That the doctor grabbed her breast also. That on receiving the said
complaint, case FIR No. 10/2026 under Section 62/64of BNS came to be
registered. That during investigation the Investigating Officer along with
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Team of DPL, Budgam visited the
place of occurrence and completed all initial formalities including
preparation of site plan, medical examination of the victim and recording of
statements of witnesses. That during investigation the copies of out-patient
register as well as the staff attendance register of the said health centre

Bail App 15/2025
7


were seized. That the said Doctor was identified as Abdul Majid Bhat @
Dr.Majid S/O Abdul Aziz Bhat R/O Kremshora and was formally arrested
in the case on the same day.
That during investigation the statement of victim as well as her
sister-in-law namely Ishrat W/o Reyaz Ahmad Najar R/o Gurwait Kalan
was also got recorded in terms of the provisions of Section 183 of BNSS.
That besides the statements of two employees of the said health centre
came also be recorded. That the accused is presently lodged in Central Jail
Srinagar as an under trial in the case FIR.
06. The accused is reported to have been arrested in the case FIR in question
on the very date of occurrence i.e., 14.01.2026 and is continuously under
detention in the case presently as under trial. The offences alleged against
the petitioner/accused i.e 62 read with 64 BNS carries a maximum sentence
which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life, which does not
attract the embargo under the provisions of Section 480 of BNSS. There
appears to be no compelling need for the petitioner/accused in custody. The
petitioner/accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty at the trial.
He also has a constitutional guarantee of his liberty under the provisions of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
07. Having regard to his social position as a Doctor, he is not believed to
misuse the concession of bail, if granted in his favour. The apprehensions
of the prosecution can however be met by imposing reasonable bail
conditions. The object of the bail is to give the accused in custody of a
surety who will be required to subject himself to the final outcome of the
trial of the case.

Bail App 15/2025
8


08. It is very needful to mention that the final report/challan in the case
FIR in question has already been presented before the Court under
Section 62/64 BNS. The Section 62 BNS relates the punishment for
attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life
or other imprisonment. It as such clear from the perusal of the final
report/challan that the petitioner/accused is alleged to have attempted
the commission of rape punishable under section 64 BNS. However,
the respondent/UT in its objections has inter alia pleaded that the
petitioner/accused is involved in the commission of rape as defined
under Section 63 of the BNS.
As verified from the trial Court, the petitioner/accused has been
charged for the commission of the offence punishable under Section
62/64 of BNS vide order dated 25.03.2026 .
09. Admittedly, in case of non-bailable offences which do not carry a sentence
of death or imprisonment for life in alternative, bail is a rule and its denial
an exception especially in cases where firstly the custodial questioning of
an accused is not imperative for the logical and scientific conclusion of the
investigation and secondly where there is nothing on record to show that
the accused, if admitted to bail, will misuse the concession by tampering
with the prosecution evidence, by non-cooperation and association with the
investigating agency and also by absconding at the trial.
10. Apart from the statutory bar, if any, two paramount considerations viz.
likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the
prosecution evidence relate to the ensuring of a fair trial of the case in a
court of law. It is essential that due and proper appreciation and weightage

Bail App 15/2025
9


should be bestowed on these factors apart from others. The grant of bail or
the denial of the same falls within the purview of the judicial discretion
meant to be exercised on sound legal principles upon the logical
interpretation and application of the same in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. The necessary arrests subject to the law of bails
as provided under the Code, BNSS and the provisions of different special
Legislations are permissible under the Constitution of our Country by way
of a reasonable exception to the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and the mandate of the provisions of
Article 22 of the Constitution is meant to be followed upon making any
such necessary arrests.
11. In State of Rajasthan Jaipur Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 S.C. 2447 , the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has held, "basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as
bail not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating the witnesses and the like, by the
petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court.
12. It is also well settled that the bar imposed under section 480 of BNSS on
the exercise of the discretion in the matters of bail subject to proviso
contained in the section, is confined to the offences carrying a sentence of
death or imprisonment for life in alternative and the offences carrying a
sentence of imprisonment for life disjunctive of death sentence are
exempted from the embargo.

13. No single rule or a golden litmus test is applicable for consideration of a
bail application and instead some material principles/guidelines are needed

Bail App 15/2025
10


to be kept in mind by the Courts and the Magistrates for consideration of a
bail application especially including:-
i. The judicial discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and
circumspection;
ii. That the Court must duly consider the nature and the circumstances
of the case;
iii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered;
iv. Investigation being hampered or
v. The judicial process being impeded or subverted.
vi. The liberty of an individual must be balanced against the larger
interests of the society and the State.
vii. The court must weigh in the judicial scales, pros and cons varying
from case to case.
viii. Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life is an exception and not the rule;
ix. The court at this stage is not conducting a preliminary trial but only
seeking whether there is a case to go for trial;
x. The nature of the charge is the vital factor, the nature of evidence is
also pertinent, the punishment to which the party may be liable also
bears upon the matter and the likelihood of the applicant interfering
with the witnesses or otherwise polluting the course or justice, has
also a bearing on the matter.
xi. The facts and circumstances of the case play a predominant role.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gur Bakash Singh Sibbia Vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1980 S.C. 1632 , referred to the following extract from the
American Jurisprudence having bearing on the subject of bail, "where the
grant of bail lies within discretion of the court, granting or denial is
regulated to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. Since the object of detention order/imprisonment of the
accused is to secure his appearance and submission to jurisdiction and the
judgment of the court, the preliminary enquiry is whether a recognizance
or bond would yield that end. It is thus clear that the question whether to
grant bail or not, depends for its answer upon a Variety of circumstances,
the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one
single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity for justifying

Bail App 15/2025
11


the grant or refusal of bail” .
15. It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 20012 SC 830 at Para 14 of its
judgment as under:
14) In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment beings after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the
earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted
persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at
the trial but in such cases, necessity is the operative test. In this country, it
would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter,
upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment
before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former
conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse
bail to an un- convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs State of UP and Anr.
2018 3 SCC 22 , has held that even if grant or refusal of bail is entirely the
discretion of a Judge, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious
manner and in a humane way observing as follows:
"2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion
of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial
discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered
by this court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there
is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the
right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstance of a case.


3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is
whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person
perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for

Bail App 15/2025
12


placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed.
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating
in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was
not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer.
Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding
due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also
necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first time
offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent
status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even
Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section
436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973”.

17. In Pankaj Jain vs Union of India and Anr. 2018 5 SCC 743, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the grant of bail has to be exercised
compassionately. Heinousness of crime by itself cannot be the ground to
out rightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming
circumstances justifying grant of bail. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its
Judgments cited as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharastra AIR 2011 SC 312, and Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr, 2020 SC online 98 , has interpreted law even
on the subject of anticipatory bail with a very wide outlook and while
interpreting concept of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of our Country in a flexible and broader sense.

18. Admittedly, the offence charged against the petitioner/accused is heinous in
nature and highly anti-social.

19. There is no second opinion that the doctors are respected and trusted as
noble men on the earth and there always is a relationship of trust and
confidence between the patient and doctor. A Medical Practitioner for the
purpose of bona fide medical examination and procedure avails the
protection under law in justified circumstances. The petitioner/accused has

Bail App 15/2025
13


been in custody in the case since 14.01.2026 i.e for about five months. He
is supposed to have been badly suffering on account of his continued
detention in the case. The trial of the case is going on and the statements of
some material witnesses including the complainant are believed to have
been recorded at the trial.
20. For the foregoing discussion, the instant bail petition is allowed and the
petitioner/accused, namely, Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat, S/o Abdul Aziz
Bhat R/o Kremshora, Budgam is admitted to bail in case FIR No.
10/2026 for the offence under Section 62/64 BNS of Police Station Khan
Sahib, Budgam, subject to his furnishing surety & personal bonds in the
sum of ₹1,00,000/- each (the surety bond of ₹1,00,000/- to be furnished by
two persons from amongst the near relatives of the petitioner, each of
whom shall be liable to the extent of ₹50,000/-), to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court and the Superintendent of the Jail concerned,
respectively, for assuring his compliance of the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused shall remain punctual at the trial of the
case.
ii) The petitioner/accused shall not leave the territory of India
without prior permission of the learned trial court.
iii) The petitioner/accused shall not repeat the commission of any
crime.
iv) The petitioner/accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any of the unexamined
prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from making true
account of the case before the trial court.
v) The petitioner/accused shall not, in any manner whatsoever,
confront the prosecutrix or subject her, directly or indirectly, to
any form of criminal intimidation.

Bail App 15/2025
14


21. The learned Trial Court shall be fully competent to proceed against the
petitioner/accused in terms of the provisions of Sections 491 and 492 of the
BNSS, in the event of violation of any of the aforesaid bail conditions.

22. It is very needful to clarify that nothing stated in this order shall be
construed as any prejudging of or interference with the merits of the case,
which shall, be the subject matter of the trial.
23. Disposed of .


(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
14.05.2026

Vijay



Whether the order is reportable: Yes




Vijay Kumar
2025.11.07 04:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document