[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rehmat Begum Age 35 Years vs Union Territory Of J&K on 6 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
[Through Virtual Mode]
Bail App. No. 258/2025
Rehmat Begum Age 35 years
W/o Bashir Ahmad,
R/o Dewal Mohar,
Tehsil & District Reasi ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Adv.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K
Through Station House Officer,
...Respondent(s)
Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu.
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
ORDER
06.02.2026
1. Petitioner having failed to secure liberty from the learned
trial court has approached this court by way of the instant petition
seeking bail for the offence under Section 302/109 IPC.
2. Precisely stated, the petitioner along-with co-accused, have
been facing trial before the court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Jammu (the Trial Court) in case FIR No. 92/2020, allegedly
committing the murder of her husband in connivance with her
paramour.
3. The challan was presented on June 11, 2020, and
immediately thereafter, the petitioner was granted short-term bail in the
month of September 2020 on the basis of the recommendation made by
the District Legal Services Authority, as the petitioner was expecting a
baby. Again, the petitioner is said to have been granted the concession
of bail in the year 2023 on the ground that her three years old child is
suffering from some medical conditions, which was again extended
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
09.02.2026
from time to time but application seeking further extension was
dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order dated July
12, 2025.
4. Thereupon, the petitioner filed another application for her
enlargement on short-term bail, so as to take care of her new-born
baby. However, it did not find favour with the trial court and was
dismissed vide order dated September 1, 2025, mainly on the ground
that during previous short-term bail, the petitioner had violated the
condition of the bail, in that, there was a specific condition
incorporated in the earlier short-term bail that the applicant shall not
leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court, during the period of
interim bail without prior permission of this court, but admittedly, the
petitioner during the said period solemnized second marriage and also
left for Srinagar i.e., beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court
without its permission. Accordingly, the trial court has dismissed the
bail application.
5. Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant petition
seeking bail mainly on the ground that her two minor children are
suffering from serious medical conditions and, therefore, are in need of
proper medical care. Although the petitioner has delineated detailed
facts and also taken legal ground on the basis of which she is seeking
the concession of bail, however, a very startling fact had come to the
fore that needs to be considered at this stage, particularly in view of the
fact that the petitioner is seeking the discretionary relief.
6. The perusal of file reveals that when the matter had come up
on December 8, 2025, Mr. Ankush Manhas, learned counsel for the
petitioner has made a statement at bar that three months old baby of the
petitioner is in need of medical care, therefore, prayed for necessary
directions to the Superintendent, District Jail, Amphalla, for taking
necessary steps in this regard. Accordingly, the Superintendent, District
Jail, Amphalla, was directed to get the baby medically examined and
provide the necessary treatment as required and to submit a compliance
report by or before the next date of hearing.
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
09.02.2026
7. In compliance to the order dated December 8, 2025, the
Superintendent, District Jail, Jammu, submitted a report dated
December 17, 2025, categorically mentioning therein that no child is
accompanying the petitioner during admission in jail. This report is
further strengthened by the report of the Senior Medical Officer,
District Jail, Jammu, dated December 17, 2025, wherein it is also
submitted that the inmate has been lodged in this jail alone, and no
child has accompanied her in the jail.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that under the criminal
jurisprudence, the matter pertaining to the grant of bail is a
discretionary relief rooted in principles of liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution, but courts exercise this discretion cautiously,
especially when the process is abused.
9. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts that obtaining bail
through misrepresentation, false statements or suppression of material
facts amounts to playing fraud on the court, thus disentitling the
petitioner/accused to equitable relief like bail.
10. Yet, for another reason, the petitioner is not entitled to the
discretionary relief of bail, in that, in the petition, it is asserted that on
October 27, 2023, interim bail was again granted for a further period of
six months, which was extended from time to time, and continued till
July 12, 2025, and during this entire period, the applicant caused
appearance before the trial court on each and every date of hearing,
never absconded, never attempted to influence any witness and never
misused the concession of bail.
11. In this regard, it is to be noted that vide order dated July 12,
2025, the trial court while dismissing the application for extension of
interim bail observed that during the pendency of the application and
today (i.e., July 12, 2025), applicant failed to appear and warrant of
arrest has already been issued in the main challan against the accused.
Therefore, the statement of the petitioner flies in the face of these
startling facts, that disentitles the discretionary relief on account of
misrepresentation, suppression of facts, violation of earlier conditions
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
09.02.2026
of the bail, in as much as on the principle that the liberty cannot be
secured by deceiving the Court.
12. For the above said reasons, the bail application found to be
misconceived, accordingly, same is dismissed.
13. The observations made in this order are restricted to the
present application and shall not be construed as an opinion on the
merits of the case. The trial court shall deal with the main case and any
application(s) filed by the applicant on their own merits.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
JAMMU:
06.02.2026
Altaf
Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
09.02.2026
