J&K HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Son Accused Of Sex On Marriage Promise And Mother Accused Of Abetting, Citing Complainant’s Own Consensual-Relationship Claim

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 60/2025, registered at Police Station Mandi under Sections 49 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and challenged the Sessions Court, Poonch’s order rejecting their application.

The complainant alleged that applicant no. 1 had sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage and that applicant no. 2, his mother, later contacted her in connection with a proposed marriage.

The State opposed bail, stating that the investigation had established an offence under Section 69 BNS against applicant no. 1.

The applicants maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations were false.

The Court considered the anticipatory-bail principles under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the personal-liberty rationale associated with Article 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , as discussed in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat & Anr. , the Court noted that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest protection and that the power must be exercised in light of personal liberty.

It also applied the factors identified in Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr. : the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused’s role and antecedents, risks of witness tampering or repetition, and the likelihood of evasion or obstruction of justice.

The Court considered the complainant’s account of a relationship with applicant no. 1 and the parties’ unsuccessful efforts to marry, noting that the relationship was described as consensual and that the families did not agree to the marriage.

Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that applicant no. 1, the principal accused, and applicant no. 2, his mother, were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the governing bail principles, the allegations, and the State’s objections, it further held that the interim protection should be made absolute.

They must cooperate with the Investigating Officer, not leave the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the concerned SHO’s permission during the investigation, and not frustrate the investigation or tamper with prosecution evidence.