UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION RAJPORA (POLICE / HOME) vs RAYEES AHMAD SHAH

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR







Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025



th
Reserved On: 7 of September, 2026.
th
Pronounced On: 14 of September, 2026.
th
Uploaded On: 14 of September, 2026.


Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.


Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir ,
Through Police Station, Rajpora, Pulwama.
… Petitioner(s)

Through: -
Mr Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate.

V/S

Rayees Ahmad Shah
S/O Mohammad Akber Shah
R/O Rahmoo, Tehsil Rajpora,
District Pulwama.
… Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Tariq M. Shah, Advocate.

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



(JUDGMENT)




01. The Petitioner-Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, through
Police Station Rajpora, Pulwama, has moved this Petition under Section
483 (3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita,
th
2023 [BNSS], seeking quashing of Order dated 11 of July, 2025 passed by
the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama (hereinafter
referred to as “Sessions Court”), whereby the accused/ Respondent herein
was granted bail in connection with FIR No. 56/2025 registered by Police
Station Rajpora, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
7/9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short “the
POCSO Act”.)

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 2 of 7

02. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case, as emerges
th
from the perusal of the Order impugned, is that, on 13 of June, 2025, the
complainant, namely, Umair Ayoub Bhat S/O Mohammad Ayoub Bhat R/O
Shankerpora, Pakherpora, approached the Police authorities of Police
Station Rajpora, with a written report, stating therein that his sister-name
withheld (hereinafter referred to as “the victim”), aged about 16 years, went
th
to her maternal aunt’s house at Rahmoo; that, on 27 of May, 2025, in the
evening, she went to sleep in a room, however, as soon as she started to
sleep on bed, the accused/ Respondent herein, who is the uncle ( Mausa ) of
the victim, entered into the said room, tried to molest her, grab her forcibly,
touched her body which hurt her and also threatened her of dire
consequences in case she discloses it to anyone; that, thereafter, the victim
managed to escape from the room and, in the meantime, her aunt ( Mausi )
came and the victim narrated the entire story to her aunt, who advised her
not to disclose it to anyone as same will disrepute them, as such, the victim
did not disclose it to someone else, until she narrated the whole episode to
her brother/ complainant.
03. It is further evident that on receipt of the report, Police Station
Rajpora registered a case bearing FIR No. 56/2025 for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act and investigation
swung into action; that, during the course of investigation, the police
inspected the site of occurrence, prepared a site plan, got the victim
medically examined and obtained the date of birth of the victim, wherein it
emerged that she is a minor, aged about 14 years as on the date of
occurrence; that the Investigating Officer also got the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before the competent Court
of law; that during investigation, it was revealed that the accused is the
maternal uncle of the victim and the victim was staying at his house, which
corroborated the offense under Section 9 of the POCSO Act and same was,
accordingly, added in the case, while as, the offense under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act was dropped from the case; that the statements of the witnesses

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 3 of 7

were recorded; and that, on the basis of evidence available on record, the
accused/ Respondent herein was found involved in the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7/9 of the POCSO Act, whereafter, he
was arrested.
04. It further transpires that pursuant to his arrest in the case, the
th
accused/ Respondent herein, on 24 of June, 2025, filed an application
before the Sessions Court, seeking his release on bail. The Sessions Court,
in terms of the Order impugned, allowed the aforesaid application and
admitted the accused/ Respondent herein on bail, subject to conditions as
detailed out in the impugned Order. It is this Order of the Sessions Court,
whereby bail was granted in favour of the accused/ Respondent herein,
which has been assailed by the Petitioner-Union Territory of Jammu &
Kashmir, through the medium of the instant Petition.
05. The Petitioner-UT is seeking cancellation of bail granted by
the Sessions Court in favour of the accused/ Respondent, mainly, on the
ground that the evidence collected during the course of investigation is
sufficient enough to indict the accused person/ Respondent herein with the
commission of heinous offences, however, the learned Sessions Court has
not given any weightage to the said aspect of the matter, which was having
paramount importance in the case in hand; that it is settled position of law
that if the bail order suffers from perversity and irrelevant evidence, the
same is liable to be cancelled and, in the instant case, the impugned Order
suffers from the vice of same, as such, is liable to be set aside and the bail
granted to the Respondent is liable to be cancelled; that the impugned Order
is bad in law, inasmuch as, it was categorically pleaded before the Sessions
Court that the accused/ Respondent herein has committed the offences in a
brazen manner, in utter shame to the victim and her family which has
shocked the conscience of the civil society and brought humiliation to the
victim and his family; and that rape is not merely a physical assault, but it
destroys the soul of the victim, besides being a serious blow to the supreme

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 4 of 7

honor and offends the self-esteem and dignity of the affected person, as
such, no bail ought to have been granted to the accused/ Respondent herein.
06. Pursuant to notice having been issued, the Respondent has
filed his Objections, stating therein that the Petitioner-UT has failed to
show any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned Order
passed by the Sessions Court; that the learned Court, after considering the
relevant circumstances and upon hearing the parties, granted bail to the
accused/ Respondent by imposing such conditions as deemed appropriate
by the Sessions Court; that there is no allegation that, after his release on
bail, the Respondent has violated any of the conditions of bail or has
absconded or has interfered with the investigation, threatened or influenced
any witness, tampered with evidence or otherwise misused the liberty
granted to him. In the end, it has been prayed that the instant Petition be
rejected.
07. Heard and considered.
08. The Respondent was granted bail by the Sessions Court in a
case related to POCSO Act, wherein he was alleged to have outraged and
sexually assaulted the child victim, who had come to his house to stay, as
the wife of the accused/ Respondent herein happened to be the maternal
aunt of the victim. The accusation against the Respondent is that, after
having assaulted the victim, by grabbing her, the Respondent had
threatened the victim not to disclose that incident to any person and that the
victim, after some time, gathering courage, disclosed the offence committed
against her by the Respondent, to her brother, who, accordingly, lodged the
written complaint, on the basis of which a formal FIR came to be registered
by the concerned police and investigation swung into action.
09. The Respondent, on having been arrested, moved an
application to the Court below for admitting him to bail in the case, which
was granted in his favour, during investigation of the case itself.

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 5 of 7

10. It is further seen that, initially, the case was registered vide FIR
No. 56/2025 at Police Station Rajpora, for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, however, after collecting
some evidence during investigation, Section 9 of the POCSO Act was
invoked, instead of Section 8, as such, the Respondent herein was facing
investigation for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7/9
of the POCSO Act.
11. Section 29 of the POCSO Act raises a presumption of certain
offences under the POCSO Act, involving Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9, and
Section 30 of the Act also raises a statutory presumption of culpable mental
state of the accused, to which he is charged of the commission of offences
under the POCSO Act. Though, the aforesaid presumptions are applicable
after the accused is charge-sheeted and not for the purpose of bail before
framing of charge, as has been argued by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent, however, these presumptions show that the sensitivity of the
provisions of the POCSO Act are meant to save a child from being
subjected to sexual violence.
12. In the instant case, although, the Court below has granted bail
to the accused/ Respondent herein having regard to the penalty provided for
the offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, however, it is a case
where the child was subjected to sexual violence in a house of her close
relatives and, that too, by a close relative. The allegation of threatening was
already alleged in the written complaint, whereupon the FIR was lodged.
The victim, who had also been examined before a Magistrate, had made
incriminating statement against the Respondent, thereby supporting the
version narrated in the FIR. In such a situation, the Court below should
have considered the bail plea, in light of the perspective as to whether the
grant of bail will enhance the course of justice or thwart the same.
13. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, coupled with the aim and object of the POCSO Act, the grant of

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 6 of 7

bail in favour of the Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court,
was too premature to be granted during the investigation of the case,
inasmuch as, the Respondent, who being the husband of the maternal aunt
of the victim, may have exerted pressure and tried to influence the hapless
child not to depose against him during trial. The Court below had not even
waited for completion of the investigation in the case before granting of
bail. It would have been in the interests of justice had the Court below
declined the plea of grant of bail in favour of the Respondent till the victim
was examined before the Trial Court, after framing of charge against the
Respondent.
14. Having said so, this Court is conscious of the legal scheme
with regard to rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage, as
the cancellation of bail so granted have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. It is trite that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already
granted. Interference or an attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused, in any manner,
can be the grounds for cancellation of bail. The satisfaction of the Court, on
the basis of material placed on record, of the possibility of the accused
absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.
15. In the case on hand, grant of bail at an earlier stage during
investigation of the case is a circumstance that the Respondent herein, as an
accused, may hamper the investigation which was yet to be concluded in
the case and also tamper with the Prosecution evidence, so as to screen
himself from the crime he allegedly committed.
16. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove,
the impugned Order, whereby bail was granted in favour of the Respondent,
having regard to the given facts as narrated hereinabove, is found to be
suffering from perversity.

Bail App No. 246/2025
CrlM No. 1960/2025

Page 7 of 7

17. Viewed thus, the instant Petition is allowed ; as a corollary
th
thereto, the impugned Order dated 11 of July, 2025 passed by the Sessions
Court is set aside and the bail granted in favour of the Respondent herein
shall stand cancelled. The Respondent is directed to surrender before the
Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpora, in case the investigation of
the case is going on, or, in case the investigation of the case is concluded
and charge sheet laid before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the
Respondent shall surrender before the said Court within a period of one
week from the date of passing of this Judgment, failing which coercive
steps shall be taken to procure his custody in the case.
18. Bail App is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with
the connected CrlM.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
th
September 14 , 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document