MST. RAFEEQA vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION ZAKURA (POLICE / HOME)

S. No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

Bail App 58/2026 c/w Bail App 40/2026
PARVEENA BANO …Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Aabid Parvaiz, Advocate in Bail App No.58/2026
Mr. Zahid Hussain, Advocate with
Ms. Laila Khalid, Advocate in Bail App No.50/2026
Vs.
...Respondent(s)
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION

ZAKOORA AND ANOTHER
Through: Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel for R 1 and 2.
Mr. Rabinder Singh, Advocate for R 3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

O R D E R
10.09.2026
1. Both the petitioners in Bail App No.58/2026 and Bail App
No.40/2026 figure as accused in charge sheet titled “UT of J&K
and Others Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others”, pending
before the court of Presiding Officer Fast Track Court for POCSO
Cases, Srinagar (for short ‘the trial court’), for commission of
offences under Sections 5/6, 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 68
and 127 of BNS.
2. As the bail applications preferred by both petitioners were rejected
by the learned trial court by way of a common order dated
1

10.02.2026, both petitions are hereby disposed of by this common
order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have been in custody since May 2025. Although their earlier bail
applications were rejected vide order dated 03.10.2025, a change
in circumstances prompted them to file fresh bail applications.
These applications were nevertheless dismissed by the impugned
common order, despite the victim's statement having been
recorded. They further submitted that during investigation, the
victim's statement was recorded twice before the police and once
before the learned Magistrate, and in none of these statements did
she implicate the petitioners. Instead, the petitioners were arrayed
as accused solely on the statement of the main accused. Learned
Counsel further urged that having been incarcerated for over a
year, the petitioners are entitled to bail. It is also contended that
both investigation and the victim’s statement are vague regarding
the date and time of the occurrence, particularly concerning the
alleged use of the petitioners' residential houses. Lastly, counsel
highlighted that the main accused has already been enlarged on
bail, albeit on account of his mother's illness.
4. Per contra, Ms. Rahila, Khan, learned Assisting Counsel submits
that the petitioners, in fact, want this Court to return findings on
the merits of the case, which cannot be done while considering the
bail applications. She has further submitted that notwithstanding
2

the recording of statement of the victim, there are material
witnesses who are yet to be examined. She has further submitted
that during investigation, Test Identification Parade was
conducted and the victim identified both the petitioners in
presence of the Executive Magistrate.
5. Mr. Rabinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the victim,
submitted that, in addition to committing the offence of rape at the
school, the main accused sexually abused the minor victim at the
petitioners' residential premises, for which the petitioners charged
money from him.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Record depicts that in terms of order dated 06.08.2025 the
petitioners have been charged for the commission of offences
under Section 5(f),(l), (p)/6 read with Section 16, 17 of the
POCSO and 127, 49 BNS. The record further demonstrates that
the petitioners had earlier filed bail applications before the learned
trial court, which were rejected vide order dated 03.10.2025.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed subsequent bail applications,
which were also rejected on 10.02.2026.
8. The allegations against petitioner Rafeeqa, as set forth in the
charge framed against her, are that she provided accommodation
in her residential house for allowing the main accused Zahoor
Ahmad Rather to commit the offence of rape upon the minor
victim, for which she charged Rs.2,000/- from the main accused.
3

Likewise, similar allegations against the petitioner-Parveena Bano
have been set forth in the charge against her, but with the
difference in amount charged, which is Rs.1000/-.
9. The statement of the victim has been recorded and she has not
turned hostile or has exonerated the petitioners. Though the minor
victim has been examined but other witnesses are yet to be
examined, most notably the Executive Magistrate in whose
presence the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of these two
petitioners was conducted, during which the victim identified
them.
10. The contentions/grounds raised by the petitioners pertain to the
merits of the case and it is settled law that while considering the
application for grant of bail, evidence cannot be appreciated (See
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, AIR
2005 Supreme Court 42 ). The petitioners, who are themselves
female, allowed their residential premises to be used for the sexual
exploitation of a minor victim for a mere few thousand rupees,
and, thus, do not deserve the concession of bail at this stage, more
particularly when the other witnesses are yet to be examined. The
learned trial court also has observed that there are number of other
witnesses, who are yet to be examined. Accordingly, these
petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach
the learned trial court for grant of bail by filing fresh bail
4

applications after the material witnesses pertaining to petitioners,
out of 41 witnesses cited by the prosecution, are examined.
11. Needless to say, that in the event fresh bail applications are filed,
the same be considered in accordance with law and without being
influenced by any observation made by this Court, though this
Court has not returned any finding on merits of the case.


(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
10.09.2026
Ishaq
Whether the order is speaking ? Yes
Whether the order is reportable ? No
5