HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CrlM No. 608/2025 in Bail App No. 100/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 308/2025 Amarjeet Kumar ..... Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. A.M. Malik, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K and Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 09.04.2025 CrlM No. 608/2025 This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Ms. Bharti Dass, W/o Sh. Arun Dass, R/o H. No. 2, Ground Floor, Meera Bhawan, Fartabad Beltala Garia, Pin- 700084 as party respondent No. 5 to the main petition bearing CRM(M) No. 308/2025. Since, the person sought to be impleaded as party to the main petition is complainant in the impugned FIR, as such, she is a necessary party to the proceedings. The application, as such, is allowed and the above named person is impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the main petition. Amended memo shall be filed by the petitioner within one week. CRM(M) No. 308/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged FIR No. 74/2025 for offences under Section 77, 351(2), 63, 303 (2), 316 (2) BNS, 2023 of Police Station, Paruli, Kolkata, West Bengal. Sr. No. 124 2 2. The petitioner has also filed a separate petition seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in the aforesaid FIR. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 against the petitioner, which has led to the registration of the impugned FIR, would reveal that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is purely commercial in nature and the said respondent has given it a criminal colour by leveling against the petitioner false allegations of having indulged in sexual intercourse with respondent No. 4 under misconception of fact. 4. It has been contended that respondent No. 4, as per her own showing, is a grown up lady aged about 52 years and she has stated that she has been indulging in sexual intercourse with the petitioner at Kolkata as well as at Jammu on several occasions for the past many years. 5. The learned counsel has contended that from the contents of the complaint itself, it can be inferred that once dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as regards financial transactions arose, she decided to level false allegation that the petitioner has committed several intercourse with her under false promise of marriage with new to extort money from the petitioner and to settle a purely commercial dispute on her terms. 6. There appears to be prima facie merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, a case for grant of interim indulgence is made out. 7. Issue notice to the respondents subject to the petitioner’s taking necessary steps within a week’s time. 3 8. Be listed on 31.05.2025. 9. In the meanwhile, investigation in the impugned FIR shall remain stayed. Bail App No. 100/2025 In view of the fact that in the petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the investigation in the impugned FIR stands stayed, no further orders are required to be passed in this application. The same is disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 09.04.2025 Neha-1 Neha Kumari 2025.04.15 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document