S. No. 259
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(Through Video Conferencing)

Bail App No. 239/2020
CrlM No. 1486/2020
CrlM No. 1487/2020
in
CRM(M) No. 395/2020
CrlM No. 1481/2020
CrlM No. 1482/2020

Sahil Khan …Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate
v/s

Union Territory of JK
‘t
…..Respondent (s)

Through :- Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

01.07.2021

Bail App No. 239/2020
CrlM No. 1486/2020
CrlM No. 1487/2020

The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail

in anticipation of his arrest in FIR bearing No. 455/2020 dated 25.08.2020 lodged by

the prosecutrix with the Police Station, Udhampur for commission of offence under

It is stated in the bail application that the petitioner has been working

as a Pizza Delivery Boy and prosecutrix has lodged false and frivolous FIR against

the petitioner. It is further stated that the prosecutrix is a habitual litigant and is in the

habit of filing similar type of complaints. It is further case of the petitioner that the

petitioner was granted bail in anticipation of arrest by the court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Udhampur vide order dated 26.09.2020 after getting the detailed

report from the concerned Police Station but later on the same was cancelled by the
2 Bail App No. 239/2020

learned court vide order dated 04.11.2020 only after the prosecutrix made a

complaint before the court against the petitioner that the petitioner has been

threatening her as well as the witnesses. The petitioner has placed on record the

photographs, copy of the compromise, copy of order dated 26.09.2020 for granting

anticipatory bail to the petitioner as well as order dated 04.11.2020 (supra) by virtue

of which the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and his bail application was

dismissed.

Status report stands filed by the respondent, in which it is stated that the

offence committed by the petitioner is very heinous and is threat to the society. It is

further stated that the Investigating Officer has prepared the site plan and has

recorded the statement of the complainant before the Magistrate but the complainant

has refused to undergo medical examination.

Mr. Irfan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

argued that the prosecutrix has never approached the Investigating Officer regarding

violation of any condition imposed by the trial court upon the petitioner while

granting anticipatory bail but she was interested in cancellation of bail of the

petitioner that is why she approached the learned trial court for cancellation of the

bail and further the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur did not call for

any report from the Investigating Officer with regard to the violation of the

conditions imposed by the court while granting bail. He further contended that the

petitioner has never advanced any threats either to the prosecutrix or the witnesses.

Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy.AG appearing for the respondent has

vehemently argued that once the petitioner was granted concession of bail by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur, he was expected to comply the conditions

imposed by the court but his conduct reveals that he has no respect for law. It was
3 Bail App No. 239/2020

further submitted by Mr. Bharti that the prosecutrix had made compliant before the

I/O with regard to the threats advanced by the petitioner.

Heard and perused the record.

From the record, it is evident that the court of Additional Sessions

Judge, Udhampur vide order dated 26.09.2020 after calling and examining the

detailed status report submitted by the Police Station, Udhampur in FIR No.

arrest to the petitioner, however, later on, on the motion of the prosecutrix, learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur has cancelled the bail. It is not forthcoming

either from the response filed by Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG or from the

status report submitted by the Investigating Officer that the prosecutrix at any point

of time had made any complaint to the Investigating Officer with regard to the

threats advanced by the petitioner to herself or to the witnesses and further the

Investigating Officer at any point of time approached the trial court for withdrawing

the concession of interim bail granted to the petitioner.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and

particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail after

detailed analysis of the prosecution case by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Udhampur, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be

granted interim protection from arrest.

In that view of the matter, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner/applicant, he shall be released on interim bail till next date on the

following conditions:

(i) subject to furnishing of two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-

each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and personal bond of

the like amount.

4 Bail App No. 239/2020

(ii) he shall not make any attempt to contact with any of the prosecution

witnesses during bail either physically or through any other mode.

(iii) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer from 03.07.2021 till

09.07.2021 from 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM.

(iv) he shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of District, Udhampur

without prior permission of this Court.

In the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the

respondent can lay a motion before this Court for cancellation of bail of the

applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG shall file a detailed status report

before the next date of hearing with regard to the compliance of the conditions by the

petitioner, imposed by this Court today.

List on 12.07.2021.

CRM(M) No. 395/2020
CrlM No. 1481/2020
CrlM No. 1482/2020

Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG shall file a detailed status report with

regard to the status of the investigation.

List as above.

(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
01.07.2021
Rakesh