Sr. No.92 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Bail App No. 63/2025 CrlM No. 374/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 188/2025 CrlM No. 375/2025 Vicky Kumar …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Matloob Mughal, Advocate. V/s Union Territory of J&K and others …. Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.03.2025 CRM(M) No. 188/2025 01. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging FIR No. 0248/2024 for offences under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered with Police Station Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu. 02. Heard and considered. 03. As per the prosecution’s case, on 13.11.2024, the prosecutrix lodged a report with Police Station, Jajjar Kotli alleging therein that on 07.11.2024 while she was travelling in a bus with the petitioner, he took away her phone and made her to get down from the bus. She was taken towards the fields where the petitioner committed rape upon her behind the bushes. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a delay of six days in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation in this regard given by the prosecutrix in the FIR. He has also contended that the fact that the prosecutrix got down from the bus with the petitioner shows that, if at all, any sexual intercourse has taken place, it was with the consent of the prosecutrix. 05. So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, the prosecutrix has, in FIR itself explained that she could not divulge the occurrence to her husband being a married person and it was only after a few days that she mustered courage to do so. Thus, there is a plausible explanation given by the prosecutrix regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. 06. So far as the question as to whether the prosecutrix had accompanied the petitioner of her own will is concerned, the same is a matter of investigation and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial to decide the said question. But one thing is clear that the prosecutrix has stated that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner against her will. Thus, allegation made in the impugned FIR, disclose commission of a cognizable offence. 07. Once a cognizable offence is disclosed from the contents of an FIR, it is the statutory duty of the Investigating Agency to undertake investigation of the case. This Court in exercise of its powers under Section 528 of BNSS would not come in the way of the Investigating Agency in performing its statutory duty. 08. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. Bail App No. 63/2025 The bail application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions in the first instance. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.03.2025 Renu Renu Bala 2025.03.10 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document