Whatsapp Chats Prima Facie Show That Accused Extended Promise Of Marriage From Time To Time Extracting Sexual Favours: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

The Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS and also dismissed the Application for bail in anticipation of arrest by the accused for offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the BNS. The Prosecution alleged that the accused, through deceitful tactics, promised to marry the Prosecutrix and exploited her by meeting her off and on at various places, giving her the impression that she was his wife.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, “These allegations levelled by respondent No.2 find support from the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the two. A perusal of the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the two would reveal that petitioner No.1 has been expressing not only his love for respondent No.2 but he has been time and again assuring her that he would enter into wedlock with her…All these chats, prima facie, show that petitioner No.1 has been extending promises of marriage to respondent No.2 from time to time and extracting sexual favours from her. In fact, petitioner No.1 in his petition has candidly admitted that he was intending to marry respondent No.2 but subsequent developments persuaded him not to go for marriage with respondent No.2.”

Advocate Shafqat Nazir appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Ilyas Laway represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Prosecution alleged that the accused invited the Prosecutrix to develop close relations with her, intending to obtain monetary aid from her family. It was further alleged accused allegedly borrowed Rs. 10.00 lacs from the Prosecutrix for his educational expenses, leading to a close association.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court stated, “The question whether petitioner No.1 had genuine reasons for backing out from the promise of marriage and whether the screenshots of chats placed on record by respondent No.2 are genuine, are matters which can be determined only after investigation of the case. Similarly, the question whether the promise of marriage extended by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 was only for the purposes of extracting sexual favours from her, is also a matter which requires to be investigated.”

The Bench explained that “it comes to the fore that the grant or refusal of bail in anticipation of arrest is a matter of discretion and there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration while taking a call on an application for grant of anticipatory bail. These factors cannot be exhaustively enumerated and the combined effect of such factors has to be taken into account by the court while granting or refusing anticipatory bail. The general considerations with which the Court has to be guided while considering the bail application are the nature and gravity of offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts peculiar to a particular case. In short, the Court has to strike a delicate balance between the right to liberty of an applicant and need for a free and fair investigation. Thus, the attending circumstances of a particular case are crucial in determining the question as to whether or not an applicant/accused is entitled to anticipatory bail.”

The Court remarked, “In the light of the aforesaid principles, let us now advert to the facts of the present case. As already stated, there is material on record to suggest that petitioner No.1 has extended promise of marriage to respondent No.2 which he has failed to fulfil. There is also material on record to prima facie show that while extracting sexual favours from respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 has assured her that he would be entering into wedlock with her. Thus, it is not a case where the allegations against petitioner No.1 are frivolous in nature but it is a case where there is prima facie material to support the allegations made in the FIR. The investigation of the case is still at its inception and the allegations made against petitioner No.1 are very serious in nature.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “With a view to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant against petitioner No.1, the Investigating Agency will have to seize the electronic gadgets including cell phone of petitioner No.1 and analyse the data and in case petitioner No.1 is granted bail in anticipation of his arrest, it is likely that he would succeed in destroying the electronic evidence. The same will have an adverse impact on the investigation of the case. Therefore, grant of bail to petitioner No.1 at this stage would thwart the course of investigation.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.

Cause Title: Shakir-Ul-Hassan & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Anr. (CRM(M) No.216/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Shafqat Nazir and Shabir Ahmad

Respondents: Government Advocate Ilyas Laway; Advocate Mian Tufail

Click here to read/download the Judgment