CRM(M) No. 874/2026 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No.874/2026 Date of order: 14.08.2026. Uploaded on: 17.08.2026 UT of J&K …....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG Vs. Pawan Kumar .…. Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 1. The petitioner-UT of J&K has filed the above titled petition under Section 439(2) of CrPC 1973 read with Section 483(3) of BNSS 2023, seeking quashment/cancellation of bail granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Reasi vide order dated 14.02.2026 passed in bail application No.37/2026 titled ‘Pawan Kumar V. UT of J&K’, whereby the respondent as an accused has been granted interim bail in a case registered vide FIR No.181/2025 at Police Station Katra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 87, 64, 127 & 351(3) BNS. 2. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds: (i) that the interim bail has been granted to the accused though he is involved in extremely serious and heinous offences, wherein, he was alleged to have kidnapped a lady along with her minor daughter from Fountain Chowk Katra in broad daylight, taken them to a hotel, forcibly committed rape upon her and illegally confined both victims for two days, intimidating the victims; Serial No. 80 CRM(M) No. 874/2026 (ii) that the charges for the commission of afore-mentioned offences were framed against the respondent accused on 25.09.2025; (iii) that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind, having regard to gravity and severity of the offences, vulnerability of the victim and minor child, intimidation of witnesses and actual conduct of the prosecution post framing of charge; (iv) that the Director General of Prosecution, J&K , after considering the matter, has granted sanction to move this application and, finally, it was prayed that the impugned order be set-aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent has been granted bail, though he was charged of the heinous offences and keeping in view the fact that not a single witness was examined, though two of the prosecution witnesses were present before the court but could not be examined by the court and that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the bail should not have been granted to the respondent by the court below at least, before examination of the material prosecution witnesses, as such, the order is required to be set-aside. 4. The petitioner has moved this petition in terms of Section 439(2) CrPC 1973, read with Section 483(3) BNSS 2023. Both these sections give special powers to High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail, providing that the bail can be granted by this court, with further provisions that the High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person, who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. 5. The respondent had been admitted to interim bail vide impugned order dated 14.02.2026, challenged in this petition. The petitioner has not placed on record as CRM(M) No. 874/2026 to whether the order of granting interim bail has been made absolute or what was the outcome of the bail application. Otherwise also, the ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondent, in case of grant of bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence. For such a relief, the prosecution can always approach the Court, who had granted the bail seeking cancellation of the bail on that ground. The petitioner has failed to substantiate with regard to any illegality committed by the Trial Court, while granting interim bail to the respondent. As such, in the considered opinion of this court, no good ground has been pleaded to seek any interference in the impugned order. 6. In the aforesaid background, the petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine. Jammu: 14.08.2026 Raj kumar ( ) (M.A Chowdhary) Judge Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. Raj Kumar 2026.08.17 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document