IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the grounds for cancelling bail must be substantial and that the trial court's discretion in granting bail should be respected unless clear evidence suggests otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. Both the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the prosecutrix have approached this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court') in charge sheet titled, 'UT of J&K v. Manu Thapa', arising out of FIR No. 12/2022 registered with Police Station, Bishnah under sections 376, 417 and 201 IPC.

2. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has sought the cancellation of bail and quashing of the order dated 24.05.2022, by virtue of which, interim bail was granted to the respondent and the order dated 23.08.2022, by virtue of which, interim bail granted to the respondent was made absolute, on the ground that the order impugned has been passed on the erroneous assumption, as there is distinction between false promise of marriage and promise to marry made in good faith and further that the respondent from the initial stage of his relationship with the prosecutrix was having no intention to marry the prosecutrix and in fact convinced the prosecutrix to enter into physical relationship with him under the false promise of marriage. It is also stated that it was the case of rare instance where a woman was made to indulge into sexual act against her will, in order to save her from disgrace and the learned trial court has given undue leverage to the concocted story projected by the accused. It is also stated that the relevant factors for grant of bail have not been taken note of by the learned trial court while grating bail such as gravity and nature of offence, the position of the accused, likelihood with the tampering of the prosecution witnesses and the chances of the accused to jump over the bail to escape the prosecution.

3. The prosecutrix too has projected the same grounds for the cancellation of bail or in the alternative for quashing of the order dated 24.05.2022, granting bail to the respondent on the ground that learned trial court has not taken note of the fact that the prosecutrix was minor but the learned trial court has granted bail on the ground that the respondent was having love affair with the petitioner and there was promise of marriage. It is also stated that no opportunity of being heard has been granted to the petitioner before granting bail.

4. Mr. P.D. Singh, learned Dy. A.G., submitted that the learned trial court has granted bail to the respondent ignoring the serious allegations and the gravity of the offence. The respondent had sexually abused the prosecutrix forcibly and by blackmailing her, therefore, the order granting bail to the respondent deserves to be quashed.

5. Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, learned Counsel for the prosecutrix/petitioner toed the line of arguments advanced by the learned Dy. A.G. and additionally submitted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to oppose the bail application by the learned trial court.

6. The respondent has filed the written submissions, wherein besides questioning the maintainability of the petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., has also made reference to the deposition of the prosecutrix before learned trial court. Mr. Sheikh Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent submits that statements of the prosecutrix, Dr. Khalida and Saudagar Mal have been recorded and till date there is no complaint against the respondent that he ever abused/misused the concession of bail. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has altogether created a new story while deposing before the learned trial court and the present petition has been filed by the prosecutrix just to harass the respondent.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that the prosecutrix submitted the written application on 24.01.2022 with Police Station Bishnah, for registration of FIR against the respondent wherein she pleaded that the respondent was known to her since long and they were good friends. However, with the passage of time, their frie