Sr. No. 2 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bail App No. 94/20 23 c/w CRM(M) No. 603/2022 Vicky …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate V/s UT of J&K …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER 29.10.2025 Bail App No. 94/2023 01. The applicant seeks grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in case FIR No. 0056/2022 under Section 376 IPC, registered with Police Station, Kanachak, District Jammu. 02. The applicant submits that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant encroached upon a public pond and illegally occupied the same. In this regard, a Panchayat Nama dated 01.05.2015 was prepared, wherein the Adalat Committee restrained them from encroaching upon the said pond, as it was being used by the general public including the applicant‟s family. 03. It is further submitted that the complainant and her in-laws have been in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints against the residents of Village Gurah Pattan. Due to this conduct, the Sarpanch, Panchs, and Lambardar of the village submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, seeking action against the complainant‟s family. 04. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, on 25.05.2022 has also addressed a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Jammu Rural, Bail App No. 94/2023 seeking an enquiry into the allegations regarding false complaints filed by the complainant and her in-laws. 05. It is contended that the complainant‟s family has attempted to encroach upon the public pond and adjoining land which serve as a vital water source for the entire village. To shield their illegal acts, false complaints have been filed against the villagers. It is alleged that the applicant, having opposed their encroachment, has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR due to personal animosity. 06. The applicant earlier filed a petition before this Court seeking quashment of FIR No. 0056/2022 dated 20.05.2022. Vide order dated 01.08.2022 passed in CRM(M) No. 603/2022 titled “Vicky vs. UT of J&K and others”, this Court stayed the operation of the said FIR. 07. Thereafter, the applicant was admitted to interim bail on 12.04.2023. On that date, while issuing notice to the respondents for filing objections, this Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. 08. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. AG, submits that the applicant has not violated any of the conditions imposed in the interim bail. However, despite repeated opportunities, the respondents have not filed their objections. 09. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in „Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab’, (1980) SCC (Cri) 465, laid down the following parameters for grant of bail: "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end. It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.” Bail App No. 94/2023 10. Similarly, in ‘Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI’, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of bail in the following terms: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ''necessity'' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 11. In view of the aforesaid legal principles and keeping in consideration the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim bail on 12.04.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the interim bail granted on 12.04.2023 is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: Bail App No. 94/2023 a. That the applicant shall furnish personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ and two sureties of the like amount before the Investigating Officer. b. That the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required; c. That the applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or the course of investigation in any manner; d. That the applicant shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of J&K without the permission of the Investigating Officer. 13. The bail application shall stand disposed of. CRM(M) No. 603/2022 1. On request of learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned. 2. List on 17.11.2025. (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE Jammu: 29.10.2025 Vishal Khajuria