Back
Jammu and Kashmir High Court Grants to PSI in Case
In a significant ruling, the has granted to Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Vikrant Kotwal, who was accused of sexually exploiting a lady constable under the . Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the between the two police personnel appeared consensual, casting serious doubt on the allegation of .
Case Background: A Relationship Turned Sour
The case originated from FIR No. 178/2026 registered at under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by ), 83 (marrying again during lifetime of spouse), 88 (causing miscarriage), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the . The complainant, Nancy Devi, a 25-year-old lady constable, alleged that she came into contact with PSI Vikrant Kotwal in while both were posted at the same police station. According to her complaint, Kotwal proposed marriage, and on the basis of repeated assurances, they entered into a and lived openly as husband and wife for several months.
During this period, the prosecutrix became pregnant twice, and on both occasions, Kotwal allegedly persuaded her to terminate the pregnancies by promising an early marriage. She later discovered that Kotwal was already married with two children—a fact he had initially concealed. Despite this revelation, she continued the relationship after Kotwal assured her that his marriage was broken and he would marry her. The two even underwent a temple-style wedding ceremony solemnized by a priest on . When she conceived for the third time, Kotwal allegedly blocked her and severed all ties, prompting her to approach senior police officers.
A preliminary fact-finding inquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Samba, recommended a full investigation, leading to the registration of the FIR. The rejected Kotwal's plea on , observing that the material suggested he had extracted sexual favours on false promises of marriage.
Arguments: vs.
Appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations arose from a prolonged between two mature adults. He contended that since the prosecutrix continued the relationship and even entered into an invalid marriage despite knowing Kotwal's marital status, her could not be said to have been obtained under a .
The respondent-State and the prosecutrix opposed the bail application, arguing that Kotwal had committed a serious offence and that, being a police officer, his crime was graver. They also claimed that Kotwal was evading arrest and could tamper with witnesses if released.
Legal Analysis: Prolonged Relationship Indicates
Justice Sanjay Dhar meticulously examined the sequence of events and the legal principles governing
. The court noted that the prosecutrix, despite being an educated major working in the police department, continued her relationship with Kotwal even after learning of his marriage and two children.
"It is not a case where the petitioner, after concealing his marital status, induced the prosecutrix into a wedlock; rather, it is a case where both of them were aware that the petitioner was a married person and that his second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage was not valid,"
the court observed.
The bench drew support from the 's judgment in Mahesh Danu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which cautioned against criminalising long-term consensual relationships that turn sour. The apex court had held that the longer the duration of a physical relationship without protest from the female partner, the more indicative it is of rather than .
Applying this principle, the High Court concluded that the prosecutrix's conduct—continuing the relationship for over a year, undergoing three pregnancies, and even participating in a marriage ceremony—strongly suggested that the relationship was consensual.
"Once there is a prolonged association or physical relationship, it would be inconceivable that the same would not be consensual in nature, unless there are circumstances which indicate to the contrary,"
Justice Dhar stated.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several pivotal observations while granting bail:
"From the above analysis of legal position on the issue it is clear that once there is a prolonged association or physical relationship, it would be inconceivable that the same would not be consensual in nature, unless there are circumstances which indicate to the contrary."
"It is not a case where the petitioner, after concealing his marital status, induced the prosecutrix into a wedlock; rather, it is a case where both of them were aware that the petitioner was a married person and that his second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage was not valid."
"The material on record does suggest that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were deeply in love with each other, which resulted in sexual intercourse between the two."
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that Kotwal was absconding, noting that he had cooperated with the departmental inquiry and remained under the disciplinary control of the police department.
The Verdict: Granted
Allowing the petition, Justice Sanjay Dhar directed that Kotwal be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:
- Furnishing a of Rs. 50,000 with a personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
- Remaining available before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
- Not tampering with prosecution witnesses or thwarting the investigation.
- Not leaving the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission.
- The investigating agency is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.
The court emphasised that the case diary was returned to the State's counsel and that the order was both . The ruling reinforces the principle that long-term consensual relationships cannot be retroactively criminalised as , especially when the complainant was fully aware of the accused's marital status throughout the relationship.
