Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 461
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SANJAY DHAR, J
SHAKIR-UL-HASSAN & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J&K & another – Respondent
CRM(M) No.216/2025 | Bail App No.62/2025 | Bail App No.72/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate, Mr. Shabir Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA-for R1, Mr. Mian Tufail, Adv-for R2
Consent for sexual relations must not be based on false promises; FIR registration must adhere to lawful procedures.
Headnote:(A) The legal provisions discussed include Section 69 and 351(3) of BNS.
(B) The court addressed the validity of the FIR and the merits of the bail application in light of allegations of deceit and sexual exploitation.
(C) The petitioners challenged the FIR claiming it was frivolous and intended for extortion. The court noted the gravity of the accusations against petitioner No.1 for violating the bodily integrity of the complainant and the necessity of a thorough investigation.
(D) Main issues included whether the allegations constituted a valid claim under the sections cited and if the FIR was registered in accordance with legal norms. (E) The court found prima facie evidence supporting the allegations against petitioner No.1, warranting denial of bail and emphasizing that granting bail would jeopardize the investigation. (F) The court dismissed the petitions of petitioner No.1 but quashed the FIR against petitioners No.2 and 3. (G) Parties involved include petitioners Shakir-ul-Hassan & Ors. and respondent UT of J&K & another. (H) No dissenting opinions were noted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the invitation and allegations of rape. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondent's claims of sexual exploitation and intimidation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's assessment of legal principles surrounding consent and fir validity. (Para 13 , 19) |
| 4. discussion on bail considerations and investigation impact. (Para 28 , 31) |
| 5. final rulings on fir status and bail applications. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT
1) By this common judgment above numbered two bail applications along with petition under Section 528 of BNSS are proposed to be disposed of.
2) Vide petition bearing CRM(M) No.216/2025, the petitioners/accused have thrown challenge to FIR No.83/2025 for offences under Section 69 and 351(3) of BNS registered with Police Station, Anantnag. Vide Bail App No.62/2025, petitioner/accused Shakir-ul-Islam has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest while as vide Bail App No.72/2025, petitioners Mohammad Ashraf Bhat and Javid Ahmad Bhat have sought bail in anticipation of their arrest in the aforesaid FIR.
(I) FACTS:
3) As per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, which came to be registered pursuant to the directions of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, issued in the complaint made by respondent No.2/complainant, petitioner No.1 invited the complainant to his home with the aid and assistance of petitioners No.2 and 3 along with one Ruhi Rifat. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners No.2 and 3 happen to be the brothers of petitioner No.1. It was alleged that the complainant was invited by petitioner No.1 so as to develop close relations with her with the idea of getting monetary aid from her family. Respondent No.2 is stated to have accepted the invitation of petitioner No.1 in the month of March, 2021. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs from respondent No.2 for meeting his educational expenses, whereafter he developed close association with respondent No.2. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 by deceitful tactics promised to marry the complainant and exploited her position by meeting her off and on at various places by giving her impression that for all practical purposes she is his wife. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 cohabited with the complainant, both at his residential house situated at Gund Jaffar, Anantnag, and also at Delhi, several times by representing that she is his wife, which, according to the complainant, is clear from phone calls and messages exchanged between the two. It is further alleged that the petitioners again invited the complainant on 13th and 14th March, 2025, along with her friends at their residence at Gund Jaffar, Anantnag, for a formal conference. However, petitioner No.1 in the midst of night took the complainant in a separate room where he disrobed her and committed rape upon her several times. She is stated to have raised a hue and cry, whereafter other family members reached the spot and when the complainant narrated her story to the other petitioners, they gave a beating to her and warned her of dire consequences. It has been alleged that petitioner No.1 always gave an impression to the complainant that she is his wife and that formal marriage would take place soon.
(II) Stand of the petitioners:
4) The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR and claimed bail in anticipation of their arrest on the grounds that petitioner No.1 is a highly qualified person having a distinguished academic record without there being any criminal antecedents. It has been further contended that the petitioners No.2 and 3 have no connection with the allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent No.2. It has been pleaded that petitioner No.1 came into contact with respondent No.2 through social media and a consensual relationship developed between the two. According to the petitioners, in the year 2023, petitioner No.1 proposed marriage to the complainant/respondent No.2, following which preliminary inquiries regarding complainant’s background we
