JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. By this petition, filed in terms of Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners are praying for quashing the FIR No. 40/2025 of Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, registered for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) BNS as also the consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed not to harass them. The above said relief is sought by the petitioners on the grounds taken in the body of the petition.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. A criminal complaint is stated to have been filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners before Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar, alleging therein that the petitioners had manhandled, abused and beaten up respondent No. 2 on 29^th May, 2025, at Rose Enclave, Shivpora, Srinagar, as she raised an objection on parking of vehicles of the petitioners in front of the main gate of her residential house. Another complaint filed on the same day at a different time is also stated to have been filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 inter alia alleging therein that the petitioners again used unparliamentary/abusive language and attempted to rape her. On the basis of the said complaints, a case FIR No. 40/2025, came to be registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) BNS. There is one more compliant on the basis whereof the police concerned had registered case FIR No. 44/2025 against some of the petitioners for commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 76, 115(2), 351(2) and 191(2) BNS and initiated the inquest proceedings. During the currency of investigation, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail on 13.06.2025 before the court of learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, who upon consideration of the matter granted interim bail in favour of the petitioners in terms of order dated 26.06.2025.

3. Upon consideration of the matter, this court while issuing notice to the respondents in the main petition as well as in the interim application, in terms of order dated 06.08.2025, directed that the police concerned shall conclude the investigation but shall not file the charge sheet besides directing the Investigating Officer of the case not to take any unwarranted coercive measures against the petitioners.

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents appeared and filed their reply.

Respondent no. 2 also filed an application seeking vacation of the direction contained in order dated 06.08.2025. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, ASI Bashir Ahmad, made a submission in the court, while appearing in person, that petitioners are not cooperating with investigation and the court granted liberty to the Investigating Officer to approach this court for appropriate orders in case the petitioners fail to cooperate with him.

5. Thereafter on 27.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioners, (wrongly shown as learned counsel for respondent in the order), had sought adjournment through a vice counsel and the matter was adjourned with the direction that in case the learned arguing counsel does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be considered on the merits, in his absence.

6. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 2/complainant had moved an application stating therein that the accused/petitioners have repeated the offence after obtaining an interim bail and they are continuously harassing her. The complainant had further asserted in her application that she apprehends that she may be met with some untoward incident if they are allowed to be on bail.

7. The trial court, upon perusing the CD file and upon hearing arguments on 25.09.2025, came to the conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail, therefore, rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused t