In a significant judicial intervention in a sensitive rape prosecution, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court stepped in to examine whether repeated rejection of bail can be sustained merely by branding an allegation as “heinous,” even when the trial record itself raises serious doubts about the prosecution’s version and the accused has already spent nearly two years in custody.
The controversy arose from a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by an accused facing trial under Section 376 IPC in a case registered at Police Station Soura, Srinagar. The prosecution case alleged that the accused raped a young woman and that she subsequently conceived, leading to registration of the FIR on a complaint lodged by her grandfather. With the trial already underway and several witnesses examined, the High Court was called upon to scrutinise whether continued incarceration was justified or whether the trial court had failed to engage with the evolving evidentiary record while mechanically rejecting bail.
Examining the material on record, the Court noted that the prosecutrix, found to be a major at the relevant time, had herself stated that she stayed back alone with the accused in his vehicle after her mother and grandfather got down, and that she accompanied him thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecutrix did not disclose the alleged incident to her family until she was taken to hospital, and even then, the FIR was lodged only after doctors allegedly refused treatment without a police report.
It was contended that these circumstances, coupled with prolonged custody and completion of examination of material witnesses, fundamentally altered the bail landscape. The State, however, opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offence and societal interest.
Taking a critical view, the High Court observed that while a detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, courts cannot shut their eyes to glaring aspects emerging from the trial. The Bench noted that “for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application, it does appear that the sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon the prosecutrix, who was major at the relevant time, appears to be consensual in nature.”
The Court further pulled up the trial court for having “mechanically rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence,” without even a prima facie engagement with the evidence. Emphasising that successive bail applications are maintainable and that prolonged custody with witnesses already examined substantially reduces the risk of interference, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the accused’s release on strict conditions.
Case Title: Basharat Ahmad Bhat vs. UT of J&K
Case No.: Bail App No.91/2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mir Umar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Faheem Nisar Shah
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
