J&K High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to 74-Year-Old Accused of Assaulting Daughter-in-Law, Citing Property Dispute and Possible Vengeance"
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner in relation to an FIR alleging sexual assault. The Court directed that in the event of the petitioner’s arrest, he shall be admitted to bail subject to specified conditions. The High Court issued notice to the respondents for filing their response within six weeks and summoned the trial court record for further proceedings. The case has been listed for hearing on 15th July 2025.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 5/2025 registered at Police Station Nowshera for alleged offences under Sections 333, 64, 62, 76, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Simultaneously, he challenged the chargesheet filed pursuant to the said FIR by invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The FIR was lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. According to the contents of the FIR, on 24.11.2024, the petitioner allegedly entered the prosecutrix’s residence with an intention to outrage her modesty. It was further alleged that the petitioner forcibly pressed her bosom, carried her in his arms, and, when resisted, issued threats to fulfill his demand. Subsequently, it was claimed that the co-accused, the petitioner’s wife, arrived at the scene and both allegedly assaulted the prosecutrix and tore her clothes.
Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the petitioner and his wife under Sections 333, 64, 76, 115(2), and 352 of BNS. It was noted that the challan was produced in their absence, as their whereabouts reportedly could not be traced by the investigating agency.
The petitioner and the co-accused then approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri seeking anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 07.04.2025, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner’s wife but declined a similar relief to the petitioner, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
In his submissions, the petitioner contended that he is seventy-four years old and asserted that it is improbable for a person of his age to engage in such conduct, especially against his own daughter-in-law. It was submitted that following the death of her husband, the prosecutrix remarried and was allegedly attempting, with her new husband, to claim a share in the petitioner’s property. Civil litigation over the disputed property was already pending before the Court of Sub-Judge, Nowshera, and an interim order protecting the petitioner’s possession was on record.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the allegations were improbable, pointing out that the prosecutrix’s Section 164-A Cr.P.C. statement introduced new claims not mentioned in the FIR. It was asserted that allegations of prior sexual assault post the death of the prosecutrix’s husband were absent in the initial complaint, which was registered on directions of the Magistrate.
On the basis of these facts, it was argued that the criminal proceedings were a tactic to exert pressure on the petitioner to cede property rights in favor of the prosecutrix and her new husband.
The High Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the documents placed on record, observed prima facie merit in the petitioner’s claims and proceeded to consider interim relief.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that:
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the documents placed on record, it appears that there is prima facie merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, a case of grant of interim indulgence is made out in favour of the petitioner.”
The Court recorded that: “It appears that the challan was produced against the accused in their absence, as according to the Investigating Agency, their whereabouts could not be traced.”
The High Court further noted the circumstances surrounding the civil litigation between the parties, indicating the ongoing property dispute. Without drawing definitive conclusions at this stage, the Court considered the pending civil suit and the interim injunction protecting the petitioner’s possession over his land.
It was stated that: “On the basis of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned criminal prosecution launched by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is nothing but a device to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner and his wife so as to coerce them to set apart a share of their property in her favour.”
The Court acknowledged the arguments pertaining to inconsistencies between the FIR and subsequent statements of the prosecutrix, particularly the allegations introduced during the Section 164-A Cr.P.C. examination.
Considering these factors, Justice Dhar found that the petitioner had made out a case for interim protection, pending further proceedings and response from the State authorities.
The High Court directed that notices in both petitions be issued to the respondent through Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, Government Advocate, who has been asked to file a response within six weeks.
The Court also ordered that a xerox copy of the trial court record be sent for, and that notice be served upon the prosecutrix (respondent No.4) through the concerned Station House Officer.
Pending final hearing, the Court directed that in the event of the petitioner’s arrest in FIR No. 5/2025, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail in anticipation of arrest, subject to specific conditions.
The petitioner is required to furnish a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sub Judge, Nowshera.
He must appear before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nowshera on 15.05.2025, the date already fixed in the case, and continue to attend the Court to which the chargesheet may be committed on every date of hearing.
The petitioner is also directed not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without permission from the committal Court or trial Court.
The petitions have been listed for further consideration on 15th July 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, Government Advocate
Case Title: XXX Union Territory of J&K
Case Number: Bail App No. 109/2025 c/w CRM(M) No. 349/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
