B.A. No. 181/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 395/2025 Page 1 of 8 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No:-Bail App No. 181/2025 CrlM No. 1153/2025c/w CRM (M) No. 395/2025 CrlM No. 786/2025 Reserved on :- 16.10.2025 Pronounced on : 17.10.2025 Uploaded on : 17.10.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced Full Arshad Mehmood, Age 29 years, S/o Makhan Din, R/o Chajjla, Tehsil Mankote, District Poonch. …..Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate Vs 1. UT of J&K through SHO P/S Mendhar, District Poonch. 2. Mehnaz Kouser, W/o Abdul Hamied, R/o Simkan Chajjla, Tehsil Mankote, District Poonch. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA for respondent No. 1 Mr. Qayoom Chowdhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER CRM (M) No. 395/2025 1. After arguing for some time, ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the charge-sheet is stated to have been completed except of the formal arrest of the petitioner, he does not wish to press the present petition at this stage. He, however, seeks liberty to raise all permissible contentions, including that of alleged false implication, before the trial Court at the time of consideration of charge/discharge. Serial No. 2. It may be noted that in terms of the order dated 09.05.2025, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court had directed that, though the investigation in case FIR No. 55/2025 could proceed, the final police report shall await further orders of this Court. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, and since learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek disposal of the matter on merits, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to urge all legally permissible grounds, including that of false implication, before the trial Court at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. 4. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Bail App No. 181/2025 1. Yesterday, the matter was taken up for consideration. The case was partly heard and directed to be listed for continuation. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to ensure the presence of the petitioner in person. In compliance thereof, the petitioner is present in Court today. The Investigating Officer is also present, along with the case diary. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case against the petitioner is false and baseless. It is contended that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 27.04.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 02.05.2025—after a delay of nearly five days clearly indicating an afterthought. On a plain reading of the FIR, it emerges that the petitioner allegedly enquired from the prosecutrix about the whereabouts of her husband, to which she replied that he was sleeping upstairs. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner entered the house of the prosecutrix in broad daylight and committed sexual assault upon her. 3. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is inherently improbable. As per the FIR itself, the alleged occurrence took place in broad daylight, and the prosecutrix is stated to have raised an alarm which attracted the attention of her husband and other locals, who rushed to the spot; however, the petitioner allegedly managed to escape. Learned Senior Counsel contends that, given these circumstances, if at all the petitioner had any evil intention towards the prosecutrix, he would not have dared to enter her house in broad daylight when her husband was present inside. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, despite the alleged presence of witnesses and knowledge of the husband, renders the entire prosecution case doubtful and suggestive of deliberation and false implication. It is argued that the FIR appears to have been lodged with the oblique motive of wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is an absconder and, therefore, not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has violated the privacy and dignity of the victim and that the FIR has been registered on a factual basis. The prosecution has denied any prior telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the victim before the incident. It is further stated that the petitioner has been harassing the prosecutrix and her husband, allegedly using his sister to file a case against the prosecutrix’s husband to exert pressure upon them and deter the prosecutrix from complaining. Page 4 of 8 5. As per the prosecution's case, on 27.04.2025 at about 11:30 AM, while the prosecutrix was at home and engaged in household chores, she received a call from the petitioner enquiring about her husband. Upon being informed that her husband was sleeping upstairs, the petitioner disconnected the call but soon thereafter entered the prosecutrix’s house, caught hold of her, and bolted the door from inside. He is alleged to have committed rape upon her. On hearing her cries, her husband and neighbours rushed to the spot and knocked at the door, whereupon the prosecutrix opened it, and the petitioner managed to flee. On this basis, FIR No. 0055/2025 came to be registered on 02.05.2025 for the offence under Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the investigation, the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile number of the prosecutrix were obtained, and the prosecutrix was also examined before the Magistrate First Class, wherein she reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. 6. After hearing both the learned counsels and going through the pleadings as well as the reply filed by the prosecution, particularly the response on behalf of the prosecutrix, it transpires that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.04.2025 between 11:00 and 11:30 AM. From the reply filed by the prosecutrix, there appears to be no effective rebuttal to the petitioner’s contention that the FIR came to be registered after due deliberations. The occurrence admittedly took place on 27.04.2025 and, as stated by the petitioner, not only the husband of the prosecutrix but even the neighbours were aware of the incident. Despite this, no immediate report was lodged with the police. It was only on 02.05.2025 that the FIR was registered, indicating a delay of several days, which does not stand explained satisfactorily. 7. It has been contended by the prosecution that the petitioner had absconded after the occurrence; however, this assertion is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and, apprehending arrest, had approached this Court by way of a bail application, which was declined with liberty to apply before the trial Court. The petitioner thereafter availed of such liberty by filing a bail application before the trial Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2025, leading to the present application before this Court. The prosecution further argued that since the petitioner is serving in the Police Department, he exercised influence over the police agency and delayed the registration of the FIR. Though the argument on the face of it appears plausible, yet it is difficult to accept that a constable could have exerted such influence over his superior officers as to prevent or delay the registration of the FIR. 8. The case diary produced before the Court reveals that there had been continuous telephonic interaction between the prosecutrix and the petitioner. The statement of the prosecutrix indicates that she alleged the petitioner had taken her photographs and was threatening to upload the same on the internet while harassing her; however, such allegations are conspicuously absent from the contents of the FIR. It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix is a married woman having two children, while the petitioner is an unmarried person, and from the material on record, there appears to have been prior acquaintance between the two. As per the FIR, the allegation is that the petitioner entered the room of the prosecutrix, bolted it from inside, and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix claims to have resisted and raised hue and cry, managed to open the door, and in the process attracted the attention of her husband and neighbours, but somehow the petitioner managed to escape. 9. Prima facie, the version of the prosecutrix does not fully inspire confidence, as her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not indicate that the petitioner escaped through any other exit except the same door which she claims to have opened. If indeed her hue and cry had attracted her husband and other neighbours, it would have been improbable for the petitioner to make good his escape from the scene. Moreover, the record reflects that even after the alleged incident dated 27.04.2025, both the prosecutrix and her husband made calls to the petitioner on his mobile phone in an attempt to settle the matter. Such conduct lends credence to the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the incident may have been consensual in nature, and that the subsequent lodging of the FIR could have been an afterthought, possibly arising out of the prosecutrix being confronted by her husband upon discovering her association with the petitioner. 10. The law relating to grant of anticipatory bail has, through judicial interpretation, evolved on the premise that pre-arrest bail is a legal safeguard intended to protect an individual from arbitrary or false implication. The discretion to grant such relief must, however, be exercised judiciously on the basis of the available material and the facts of each particular case. Page 7 of 8 11. It is undisputed that arrest entails serious consequences not only for the accused but also for the entire family. In the present case, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.04.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 02.05.2025. Having regard to this delay, coupled with the admitted prior proximity between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out at this stage. The petitioner has further alleged that the husband of the prosecutrix, being a local Naib Sarpanch, had certain disputes regarding developmental works in the locality and, in order to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner who is serving in the Police Department and belongs to the same locality the present case has been fabricated. 12. On perusal of the case diary, though the allegations are of a serious nature, it is noticed that the version of the prosecutrix in her complaint dated 02.05.2025 and the statement under Section 183 BNSS recorded on 14.05.2025 shows a marginal improvement. In the later statement, she has alleged that the petitioner used to blackmail her based on certain photographs, which assertion does not find mention in the initial complaint. 13. The investigation is stated to be substantially complete; statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses have been recorded and the prosecutrix has also undergone medical examination, which has yielded a negative report. In this backdrop, denial of the concession of anticipatory bail would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when he has been asserting his innocence and alleging false implication from the very inception. The petitioner is serving as a Constable in the Police Department and has no past antecedents of any such misconduct as alleged in the FIR. Page 8 of 8 14. In view of the above discussion, this application is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 55/2025, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 20.10.2025 at 10:00 A.M., and shall continue to remain available as and when required during further investigation. (ii) On appearance, he shall furnish a personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (iii) In the event of any recovery being affected at his instance, such participation shall be treated as one under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate the prosecution witnesses or cause any impediment in the investigation or trial. 15. It is made clear that violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the competent Court. 16. The bail application stands disposed of alongwith connected application(s), if any. Any observation on merits may not prejudice the parties in trial. 17. Case diary be returned to the learned Government Counsel against proper receipt. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court as well as the Investigating Officer for compliance. (Sanjay Parihar) Judge Jammu 17.10.2025 Diksha