Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 652
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 given under false promise of marriage cannot be deemed voluntary; FIR upheld based on serious allegations of exploitation.
Headnote:(A) BNS - Sections 69 and 351(3) - Challenge to FIR for offences of sexual exploitation and false promise of marriage - Petitioners challenged the FIR stating it is frivolous and vindictive, but the court found sufficient grounds for the allegations made. (Paras 3, 13, 31)
(B) Bail - Anticipatory Bail - The court ruled that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as it would impede the ongoing investigation into serious allegations made against petitioner No.1. (Paras 28, 31)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners allegedly invited the complainant under false pretense of marriage and exploited her by establishing a close relationship, leading to allegations of rape and intimidation following the promise of marriage.
Findings of Court:
FIR retained against petitioner No.1 due to serious allegations, while petitioners No.2 and 3 were found to have no involvement and had their FIR quashed.
Issues: The court addressed whether consent was given voluntarily by the complainant and the implications of a delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations in the FIR were sufficient to warrant investigation, and the court could not preemptively dismiss complaints without due consideration.
Result: Petition of petitioner No.1 dismissed; petitions of No.2 and 3 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of consensual relationship and subsequent exploitation are central. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondent's claims of intimidation and monetary demands create pivotal context. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court recognizes need for investigation on consent validity and exploitation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. bail considerations hinge on protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations. (Para 28 , 31) |
| 5. petition outcomes delineate the distinctions in culpability among petitioners. (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 pr
