Married To Accused & Wants To Live With Him: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Grants Bail To Army Official In POCSO Case

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a petition filed by the Petitioner invoking Section 482 BNSS for bail, in anticipation of arrest.

Update: 2026-05-24 06:00 GMT

Justice Rajesh Sekhri, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an Army Official who was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, after noting that the complainant married him and also stated that while getting the complaint lodged, she was influenced by the family members and police.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the Petitioner invoking Section 482 BNSS for bail, in anticipation of arrest, in a case registered under Sections 4, 6, 12, 15 POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 64, 65, 75, 351, 352 BNS, 2023, primarily on the ground of compromise with the prosecutrix, at whose instance the FIR came to be registered.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri stated, “The admitted position emerging from the record is that the prosecutrix-private respondent, in her statement before the Magistrate, has clearly stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR against him and his brother on the advice of the police officials and her relatives. She also stated that she is married to the petitioner now and wanted to live with him.”

Advocate Amit Gupta represented the Appellant while Govt Advocate Suneel Malhotra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecutrix had lodged a written report against the petitioner and his brother, alleging that the petitioner, who is serving in the Indian Army, started visiting her house and hypnotized her for sexual favours. It was alleged that she was a minor and the accused was misusing her and provoking her to establish sexual relations for the last three years. It was also alleged that subsequently the accused threatened her with dire consequences if the incident was disclosed to anybody. The complainant also alleged that the brother of the petitioner would also call her and request sexual favour by offering money, and on her refusal, would use filthy abuses. On this written complaint, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and his brother.

The statement of the prosecutrix came to be recorded before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, whereby she deposed that she was in love with the petitioner for three years. Since the petitioner did not pick up her calls, she thought that he had cheated her. She was ill-advised and influenced by her relatives and police officials of Himachal to lodge the FIR. The prosecutrix further stated that, now after having attained the age of majority, she was married to the petitioner and therefore did not want any legal action against him. It was also stated by the prosecutrix that she, along with her husband, the petitioner had filed a joint petition in the High Court for the quashment of FIR. The application preferred by the petitioner for bail in anticipation of arrest in the trial Court did not find favour primarily in view of the bar contained in Section 482(4) of BNSS.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecutrix-private respondent, in her statement before the Magistrate, had clearly stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR against him and his brother on the advice of the police officials and her relatives. She also stated that she was married to the petitioner and wanted to live with him.

The Bench thus stated, “Since prosecutrix has no objection to the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner, present application is allowed and petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest on his furnishing a surety bond to the tune of Rs. 25000/- and a bond of personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court…”

The Bench, however, imposed the condition that the accused should not jump over bail, tamper with the prosecution evidence and threaten prosecution witnesses. The Bench also asked him not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the UT of J&K without prior permission of the Trial Court.