Subject :
O R D E R
SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 has been filed by the accused persons who have been denied anticipatory bail while SLP (Crl.) No.14964/2023 has been filed by the prosecutrix aggrieved by the anticipatory bail given to the other accused who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The prosecutrix in her statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was allegedly raped by the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023.
The I.O. Lalit Sharma, is also present before us.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced the translated version of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The I.O. who is present before us has produced the case diary which indicates the examination of another witness who is an official in the hotel in which the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. Suffice it to state that the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 is spoken about by the said witnesses in tune with the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
In light of the said allegations which are very serious in nature, we are not inclined to allow SLP
(Crl) No.14073/2023.
However, insofar as SLP (Crl) No.14964/2023 is concerned, as against A1 there is no allegation of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The other two accused being the father-in-law and mother- in-law had a limited role to play. The High Court under the impugned order has correctly considered the aforesaid aspect while granting anticipatory bail. As we do not find any perversity in the decision made, we are inclined to dismiss the said petition also.
However, we are inclined to grant four weeks’
time to the accused in SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 to surrender before the jurisdictional court as and when the bail application is be filed, the same has to be decided on its own merit, without being influenced by the order held in the impugned order or by us.
The Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the bail application within a period of two weeks from date of the its filing.
Needless to state that during the said period of four weeks granted for surrendering, the petitioners in SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 are directed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s),if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 14073/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-09-2023 in BA No. 359/2021 passed by the High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh At Jammu)
WASEEM AKRAM & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS U.T. OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 224378/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH SLP(Crl) No. 14964/2023 (II-C)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 238196/2023, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 238198/2023 Date : 11-01-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Ms. Deepika Pushkar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Sadeeq-ur-rahman, Adv.
Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Purna Chandra Patnaik, AOR Mr. Pravin Kumar Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Adv.
Mr. Saket Jee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Ms. Deepika Pushkar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Sadeeq-ur-rahman, Adv.
Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Purna Chandra Patnaik, AOR Mr. Pravin Kumar Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Adv.
Mr. Saket Jee, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 has been filed by the accused persons who have been denied anticipatory bail while SLP (Crl.) No.14964/2023 has been filed by the prosecutrix aggrieved by the anticipatory bail granted to the other accused who are father-in-law and mother- in-law.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The prosecutrix in her statement given before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she was allegedly raped by the accused arrayed in SLP (Crl.) No.14964/2023.
The Investigating Officer (for short, - I.O.)
Lalit Sharma, is also present before us. Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced the translated version of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The I.O. who is present before us has produced the case diary which indicates the examination of another witness who is an official in the hotel in which the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. Suffice it to state that the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.14964/2023 is mentioned by the said witnesses in tune with the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
In light of the said allegations which are very serious in nature, we are not inclined to allow SLP
(Crl) No.14964/2023.
However, insofar as SLP (Crl) No.14073/2023 is concerned, there is no allegation of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC against A-1. The other two accused being the father-in-law and mother-in-law had a limited role to play. The High Court under the impugned order has correctly considered the aforesaid aspect while granting anticipatory bail.
As we do not find any perversity in the decision arrived at by the High Court, we are inclined to dismiss the said petition also.
However, we are inclined to grant four weeks’
time to the respondents in SLP (Crl.) No.14964/2023 to surrender before the jurisdictional court. As and when the bail application is be filed, the same has to be decided on its own merit, without being influenced by the order by this Court.
The Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the bail application within a period of two weeks from date of the its filing.
Needless to state that during the said period of four weeks granted of surrender, the petitioners in SLP (Crl.) No.14073/2023 are directed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s),if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.