Bail App No.110/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 14.07.2025 Pronounced on: 18.07.2025 Bail App No.110/2025 PRAJUL BEKTA ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate, with M/S: Zamir Abdullah, Mr. Zahir Abdullah, Niruikar Singh, Sirhaan Seth & Sheezan Hashmi, Advocate. Vs. UT OF LADAKH …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Mr. Faizan & Ms. Bisma Ali, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No.10/2024 for offences under Section 64(1), 79 and 351 of BNS registered with Police Station, Zanskar District Kargil. 2) The facts leading to the filing of present bail application are that on 1st September, 2024, complainant, Ms. X, lodged a written complaint with SHO, P/S Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, alleging therein that she had joined a group trip from Manali to Ladakh which was organized by a travel company called ‘Keego’. The organizer Bail App No.110/2025 introduced the petitioner as a co-traveller and, in order to avoid driving alone on dangerous road, the complainant was assured of safety by travelling in a group. On 28.06.2024, Ms. X left Delhi in the morning and picked up the petitioner from his residence in Mohali. According to Ms. X, this was the first time she met the petitioner. After travelling for whole day, they reached Manali where they stayed in “Khyab Boutique”. Ms. X, after having dinner and some drinks in the lawn with other hotel residents, went to her room. The petitioner came to her room and knocked the door and Ms. X, in order to maintain politeness, allowed him to come inside the room. It is alleged that the petitioner forcibly insisted on staying in the room despite having been asked to leave and he insisted on sleeping on the bed of Ms.X, who firmly refused and conveyed that she does not want any physical relationship thereby conveying her boundaries to the petitioner. 3) On 29.06.2024, the whole group stayed in Manali and in the evening, the organizer arranged for screening of World Cup cricket match. It is alleged that Ms. X, in order to avoid further interaction and possibility of miscommunication with the petitioner, decided to sit in her room and not to watch the match with other members of the group. Bail App No.110/2025 4) On 30.01.2024, the group members left in two cars from Manali to Gonbo Rongjon. The organizer and other two travellers were in one car whereas Ms. X and the petitioner travelled in another car. During day time, the petitioner is stated to have behaved normally with Ms. X. On reaching Gonbo Rongjon, the group members stayed in their respective camps. 5) On 10.07.2024, the petitioner and Ms. X along with other members of the group went out for sightseeing at a monastery at Phugtal, Ladakh. According to Ms. X, she decided to stay away from other members of the group for the whole day so as to avoid giving mixed signals to the petitioner. Upon reaching Padam (Zanskar Valley), in “Hotel Omasial”, the entire group gathered for drinks and diner at the common restaurant of the said hotel and after dinner at around 11.00 p.m., the group members went back to their respective rooms. While door of the room of Ms. X was lying open, the petitioner along with trip organizer came over there and they asked for a lighter. After some conversation for a few minutes, the group organizer left the room but the petitioner stayed back in the room. It is alleged that Ms. X asked the petitioner to leave the room and not to smoke more but he insisted upon talking to her. While Ms. X was lying on her bed, already tipsy from the Bail App No.110/2025 drinks and exhausted from the long drive, waiting for the water to heat in the bathroom for a shower, the petitioner sat on her bed and despite her repeated requests to leave, he lay on top of her and started rubbing his body against her body. It is alleged that Ms. X tried to push him away but he forcefully inserted his penis and ejaculated inside the vagina. It is further alleged that Ms. X screamed and started crying and asked the petitioner to leave. She was left shocked and traumatized. According to the complainant, the petitioner took advantage of her fatigued and inebriated condition. 6) On 02.07.2024, Ms. X was desperate to find an i-pill and had minimal interaction with the petitioner. However, she was interacting with other co-travellers but she tried to avoid any confrontation 7) On the next day, the members of the group left for their journey from Padam to Manali. According to Ms. X, because she was highly dependent on someone to sit with her during driving as she was a new driver for mountain roads, therefore, allowed the petitioner to drive with her for their journey back towards Manali. During the drive when Ms. X told the petitioner that he had done a wrong thing with her and that it was not consensual, he started verbally abusing her and asked her as to why she was upset as it Bail App No.110/2025 was normal thing. It is alleged that the petitioner continued to threaten Ms. X and made her to feel unsafe. Finally, a chemist shop was spotted near Manali and she felt relieved. 8) According to the complainant, the petitioner threatened that it would be safer for her not to tell anyone as to what had happened. In the evening, the group members spent time chatting whereafter they went to their respective rooms to sleep. The petitioner again knocked the door of her room on the pretext that she had left her phone outside but she told him not to come inside the room. Despite this, the petitioner pushed the door and forced his way inside. When Ms. X conveyed to the petitioner that she was not interested in anything, the petitioner verbally abused her and finally left the room. 9) On 04.07.2024, Ms. X decided to leave for Delhi from Manali, though earlier she had thought of delaying her departure by a few more days. According to her she had decided to drive alone but because it was heavily raining and there were reports of road cracks near Manali, she allowed the petitioner to accompany her and let him drive the car from Manali to his residence at Mohali. During the drive, Ms. X tried to confront the petitioner and derive an apology from her but he continued to intimidate her. Bail App No.110/2025 Finally, after dropping the petitioner at Mohali, Ms. X drove alone to Delhi and reached there during night. 10) The explanation that has been tendered by Ms. X for delayed lodging of the complaint is that she was traveling extensively throughout the month of July and after her return, she left to be with her sister in Uttarakhand for two weeks and from July 23rd to 30th July, she was in Kenya. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant took some time to process the grief and pain and finally, upon returning home and discussing the traumatic events with her sister, family and close friends, she gathered courage to file the complaint. 11) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Zero FIR bearing No.02/2024 came to be registered with Police Station, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. The same was forwarded by Deputy Commissioner of Police, South, New Delhi, to SSP, Kargil, for necessary action at his end, whereafter FIR No.10/2024 for offences under Section 64(1), 79, 351 of BNS came to be registered with Police Station, Zanskar District Kargil and investigation was set into motion. 12) It appears that during investigation of the case, the petitioner came to be arrested on 9th June, 2025. The statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS was Bail App No.110/2025 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, South East, Saket New Delhi on 18.12.2024. The statement of the organizer of the tour as also the statements of group members, who were travelling with the petitioner and the victim, were recorded during investigation of the case. The investigation is stated to be still in progress. 13) It seems that the petitioner had approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kargil, for grant of bail, but the same has been rejected in terms of order dated 1st July, 2025 passed by the said Court. 14) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that, after his arrest, he has been cooperating with the Investigating Agency and no recovery is to be effected from him, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not needed any further. It has been further contended that even if allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true, still then the offence of rape is not made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as the conduct of the prosecutrix shows that if at all any physical relationship had taken place between the two, the same was consensual in nature. It has been contended that the allegations made in the FIR are highly improbable which go on to show that no such incident, as has been alleged in the FIR, has ever taken place. According to the petitioner, there has been unexplained delay in Bail App No.110/2025 lodging of the FIR which makes the prosecution story highly doubtful. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest which makes his arrest illegal. 15) The respondent Investigating Agency has resisted the bail application by filing its reply/status report. In its reply, the respondent Investigating Agency has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner. It has been stated that initially the case was being investigated by Police Station, Zanskar but a Special Investigating Team [“SIT”] has been constituted and now the case is being investigated by the SIT. It has been stated that the prosecutrix did not subject herself to medical examination and upon arrest of the petitioner, his potency test was conducted. 16) It has been further submitted that the mobile cellphone of the petitioner has been seized and some photographs and videos have been retrieved from the same which have been sent to FSL for examination. The statements of most of the witnesses have been recorded and the statements of certain more witnesses are to be recorded. It has been further submitted that the supplementary statements of the previously recorded witnesses hailing Bail App No.110/2025 from outside the Union Territory of Ladakh are also required to be recorded. Thus, further time is required to complete the investigation 17) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the Case Diary produced by the respondent Investigating Agency. 18) The guidelines relating to grant of bail have been laid down in Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS. While in Section 480 BNSS, certain restrictions and conditions have been laid down for grant of bail by a Court, the power to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS for the High Court or the Sessions Court is wider. The overriding considerations in granting bail as laid down in Section 480 and Section 483 BNSS, are the nature and gravity of the offence, the frivolity or otherwise of the prosecution case, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of accused fleeing from justice, the chances of repeating of offence by the accused, the chances of tampering with the witnesses, the stage of investigation and the public interest. 19) The Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar and another, (2020) 2 SCC 118, while discussing the amplitude and power of the Court under Bail App No.110/2025 Section 439 Cr. P. C, which is in pari-materia with Section 483 of BNSS, has observed as under: “The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.” 20) From the aforesaid discussion of law on the subject, it is clear that while nature of offence and severity of punishment is an important consideration while considering bail plea of an accused, a prima facie view of involvement of the accused in the alleged crime is a factor which is also required to be considered. While there can be no two about the fact that the accusation levelled against the petitioner is grave in nature. However, it is to be seen whether the material on record supports such accusation. On this aspect of the case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the contents of the report lodged by Ms. X, on the basis of which the subject FIR came to be registered. It is pertinent Bail App No.110/2025 to mention here that the statement of Ms. X recorded under Section 183 of BNSS is more or less on similar lines. 21) The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the assertions made in the report lodged by Ms. X against the petitioner are full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities. He has contended that if the incident had actually happened on 01.07.2024, in the normal course of human conduct, the complainant would have disassociated herself from the group or at least she would have avoided company of the petitioner but instead of doing so, she continued to be in the company of the petitioner completing the whole trip in his company and not only this, she proceeded to drop him at his residence at Mohali and thereafter went to Delhi. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that at least, while traveling from Mohali to Delhi, she could have avoided the company of the petitioner by refusing to give him lift in her car. This conduct of the prosecutrix, according to the learned Senior Counsel, militates against her contention that the petitioner had violated her modesty against her consent. 22) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that if at all any such incident had taken place, it was open to the prosecutrix to narrate the incident to other members of the group or to the police in Ladakh or to Bail App No.110/2025 police at Manali but she did not do so. She did not lodge the report with the police even on reaching the safe environs of her home at Delhi on 4th July, 2024 and instead of doing so, she, as per her own assertion, went to be with her sister in Uttarakhand for two weeks and thereafter she travelled to Kenya upto 30th July, 2024. Even after returning from Kenya, she did not lodge the report with the police upto 1st September, 2024. 23) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix is a law graduate and knows very well the implication of delayed lodging of FIR but she chose to lodge the FIR after about two months of the incident without there being any plausible explanation for the same. The aforesaid conduct of the complainant, according to the learned Senior Counsel, makes the story projected by her highly doubtful. 24) There appears to be prima facie merit in the aforesaid contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the Case Diary would reveal that the statements of co-travellers of the petitioner and the prosecutrix have been recorded by the police during investigation of the case and PW Sabal Gupta, the organizer of the trip, in his statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS, which is available in the Case Bail App No.110/2025 Diary, has clearly ruled out the happening of any such incident with the prosecutrix. He has stated that the prosecutrix never shared anything relating to this incident with any member of the group nor could he see any change in her behaviour towards other members of the group or even towards the petitioner. In fact, he has stated that it is at the insistence of the prosecutrix that he compelled the petitioner to accompany her from Manali to Mohali on their way back as the prosecutrix wanted to have his company. The statements of other group members recorded during investigation of the case are also on similar lines. In fact, group member PW Chandni has stated that the prosecutrix was quite frank with her but she never disclosed anything about the incident to her. 25) Although, it would be premature for this Court to deeply analyse the material collected by the Investigating Agency in support its charge against the petitioner at this stage, yet, even in the bail proceedings, the accused has a right to demonstrate from the material collected by the Investigation Agency that the charge against him is frivolous. From a, prima facie, evaluation of the material on record, it appears that the petitioner has a good defence against the charge laid by the prosecutrix against him. It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid opinion rendered by Bail App No.110/2025 this Court is limited for the purpose of these proceedings and it shall have no bearing upon ultimate outcome of the investigation. 26) Thus, without commenting upon merits of the case, it appears that the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the material collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation of the case does not, prima facie, show that the charge laid against the petitioner is well-founded. The learned trial court while rejecting application of the petitioner for grant of bail, it appears, has landed itself into an error by failing to properly analyse the material collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation of the case. 27) Apart from the above, the investigation of the case is nearing its completion and the statements of most of the material witnesses have already been recorded by the Investigating Agency. The conduct of the petitioner during investigation has been cooperative, inasmuch as he has voluntarily surrendered before the police and he has also given access to the Investigating Agency to all his electronic gadgets. Besides, this, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 28) In the aforesaid circumstances denying concession of bail to the petitioner would amount to inflicting punishment Bail App No.110/2025 upon him without trial and the same may prejudice his right to prepare defence against the charge that has been laid against him. Further, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggests that in case the petitioner is granted bail, he would be fleeing or thwarting the course of justice. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded in carving out a case for bail in his favour. 29) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions: (I) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; (II) That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required and shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. (III) That he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Investigating Officer and shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer; 30) The bail application shall stand disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 18.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.07.2025 22:30