The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of rape after the complainant admitted before the court that she is legally married to the accused. The case was heard by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, who took note of the complainant’s statement and the fact that she did not raise any objection to the court quashing the case or granting bail to the accused, identified as Ali Mohd. The judge observed that since the complainant herself acknowledged the marital relationship and did not oppose the relief sought by the accused, there was no justification to continue his detention. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the accused, underscoring the significance of the complainant’s admission in determining the course of legal proceedings.
As a result, the High Court decided to grant bail to Ali Mohd, who had already spent approximately one and a half years in judicial custody. The court took into account the complainant’s admission of their marital status and her lack of opposition to the bail plea while making its decision. Given these circumstances, the court found no sufficient grounds to justify his continued detention. Recognizing the prolonged period he had already spent behind bars and the complainant’s stance on the matter, the court concluded that granting him bail was both reasonable and appropriate in the interest of justice.
"Normally this Court would not have granted the bail in view of serious allegations but taking into consideration that the complainant herself has stated that she is the wife of the petitioner and she has no objection to the petition for quashing the FIR and the application for grant of bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail particularly when the petitioner has been in custody since September, 2023," the Court said in its order of March 7.
Ali Mohd approached the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court seeking bail and the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him at Samba Police Station on September 14, 2023.
During the proceedings, it was contended that the FIR had been filed as a retaliatory measure in response to Mohd’s opposition to an application for maintenance filed by the complainant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in November 2022. The defense argued that the allegations in the FIR were motivated by a prior dispute over maintenance rather than being based on actual criminal conduct.
The court took note of the complainant’s admission that she was legally married to the accused and her lack of opposition to his bail application. Given these circumstances, the court found no compelling reason to justify his continued detention and accordingly granted him bail. Meanwhile, the petitioner chose to withdraw his plea challenging the FIR, but the court granted him the liberty to raise the same grounds before the trial court at an appropriate stage.
Advocate HC Jalmeria represented the petitioner in the case, presenting arguments in favor of bail and highlighting the retaliatory nature of the FIR.
info@adhwaitha.com
