HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIRAND LADAKH

ATJAMMU

Reserved on : 31.07.2023

Pronounced on: 22 .08.2023

Bail App 141/2023

Mohd. Ramzan

…..Appellant(s)

Through:-

Mr. Rupak Ratta, Advocate

v/s

Union Territory of J&K and another

.....Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA

Mr. Mohd. Irffan Inqlabi, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

The petitioner herein seeks bail in FIR No. 22/2022 dated

08.11.2022 registered at Police Station, Dacchan, Kishtwar for commission

of offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 343, 109 IPC.

2.

The case setup by the petitioner in the instant application is that

he solemnized marriage with prosecutrix-Tasheena Banoo as per Muslim

rituals on 25^th October, 2022 at Anantnag. A complaint was lodged by the

father of the prosecutrix on 25^th day of October 2022 alleging therein that

on 23^rd October, 2022 in the evening he and his daughter went to their

respective rooms to sleep and on 24^th October, 2022 the complainant after

returning from morning prayer saw that the room of the daughter was bolted

from outside. It is stated that the prosecutrix solemnized marriage on 25^th

2

Bail App No. 141/2023

October, 2022 and presented herself before Shariat Board in presence of

Molvi and witnesses to accord her consent for the marriage and also vetted

the Nikah nama. Subsequently prosecutrix accompanying the petitioner

appeared before the Court wherein she executed marriage agreement,

affidavit before public notary and also filed suit for restraining the

defendants from causing any sort of interference in the life and personal

liberty and liberty of petitioner. It is stated that the prosecutrix and the

petitioner remained at Anantnag, Srinagar at almost 16 days and while

returning to home were apprehended by police agency. The prosecutrix on

apprehension was handed over to her parents and it was imperative up on the

police agency to get her statement after recovery, but deliberately they did

not do so for almost 9 days. It is stated that the parents of the prosecutrix

physically tortured the prosecutrix so that they could prevail upon her to

give false statement against the petitioner. Her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she stated that while she was on way to

massi’s house on 23.10.2022, sweet (Laddu) was afforded to her by the

petitioner, thereafter she became unconscious and the petitioner forcibly

solemnized marriage, which is totally contradictory to the facts and

circumstances of the case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the Re-

organization Act 2019, the State of Jammu and Kashmir in question was

being governed by the RPC and Cr.P.C 1989 (1933-AD), however, in

amendment carried out by the State Legislature in terms of Section 497-C

Cr.P.C incorporated as special provision regarding bail in heinous offences

3

Bail App No. 141/2023

against women which was synonymous to Section 37 NDPS Act in case of

commercial quantity and the petitioner is lodged in judicial custody in

District Jail, Kishtwar after filing of the challan. It is stated that the applicant

is in custody since 08.11.2022 after passing Re-organization Act 2019, the

rigor of Section 497-C Cr.P.C of State of J&K is not applicable in the

present case. It is stated that the petitioner is languishing in jail in violation

to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India without any viable reason and,

as such, is entitled to bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan has

been presented before the trial Court which is pending disposal. On

03.04.2023, the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the

Court