HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CrlM No. 1109/2025 in Bail App. No. 32/2023 Surjeet Kumar …..Petitioner Through: Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate for non- applicant/petitioner. Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG for R-1 Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate for applicants/respondents No. 2 & 3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (10.03.2026) CrlM No. 1109/2025 01. This is an application filed by the applicant/complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 06.02.2023 read with order dated 28.05.2025. 02. The applicant/complainant has sought cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner/accused on the ground that during the investigation of the case, offences under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were also found established against the petitioner and this aspect of the matter was not considered Serial No. 01 2 CrlM No. 1109/2025 in Bail App. No. 32/2023 by the Court at the time of granting bail to him. It has also been contended that the petitioner/accused has violated the conditions of the bail as he is continuously threatening the prosecutrix and her mother and asking them to withdraw the prosecution against him. 03. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the case diary. I have also heard the Investigating Officer-Sh. Roshan Lal Choudhary, Sub Inspector of Police Station, Khour, Jammu. 04. It is true that at the time of granting interim bail to the petitioner on 06.02.2023 offences under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were not incorporated but it is equally true that at the time of making the interim bail absolute in terms of order dated 28.05.2025 the status report filed by the respondent-State was before the Court wherein it was clearly indicated that offences under Section 4/5 of POCSO Act have been incorporated. Thus, at the time of making the bail granted to the accused absolute, this Court was conscious of the fact that offences under Section 4/5 of POCSO Act stood incorporated against the accused. 05. It is to be noted that bail in favour of the petitioner was granted having regard to the circumstances surrounding the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner/accused. Normally in heinous crime like rape or 3 CrlM No. 1109/2025 in Bail App. No. 32/2023 offences under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, the Courts are reluctant to enlarge the accused on bail till such time investigation is complete or till the trial progresses substantially but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, having regard to the huge delay of three years in lodging the FIR, this Court was persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Merely because offences under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were incorporated during the investigation of the case would not be a sufficient ground to cancel the bail of the accused because the nature of allegations and the fact that FIR was lodged after a delay of about three years has not altered. The ground urged by the applicant in this regard is, therefore, misconceived. 06. So far as the other ground that has been urged by the applicant/complainant which relates to violation of bail conditions and threat to the prosecutrix is concerned, the said allegations are not substantiated from any material on record. In fact, the investigating officer who is present in Court, has submitted that investigation of the case is complete and only because of the stay order granted by this Court, the charge sheet could not be filed. From this, it can be inferred that the accused has cooperated during the investigation of the case, despite there being stay on filing of the challan. 4 CrlM No. 1109/2025 in Bail App. No. 32/2023 07. The case diary does not indicate that any threat or coercion was exerted by the petitioner/accused upon the prosecutrix or any of her relations. To buttress the said allegation, the applicant has not placed on record any material. The applicant, it seems has not approached the Police to lodge any report about the alleged threats exerted by the petitioner/accused against the prosecutrix. The assertion of the applicant, therefore, cannot be accepted. 08. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court in terms of order dated 06.02.2023 read with order dated 28.05.2025. The application being without any merit is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the applicant/complainant to seek cancellation of bail of the petitioner/accused, if and when, the conditions on which the bail has been granted to him are violated by him. 09. Case diary be returned. 10. The application is accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 10.03.2026 SUNIL