Sexual Favour Case: Jammu Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Accused Soldier After Complainant Marries Him | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has granted anticipatory bail to an Army personnel accused in a sexual exploitation and POCSO case registered in Kathua after the woman complainant informed the court that she had lodged the FIR under the influence of relatives and police officials and had subsequently married the accused.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the order while hearing a bail application filed by Rakesh Kumar, a resident of Basantpur in Kathua district, in connection with FIR No. 0018/2025 registered at Women Police Station Kathua under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

According to the court order, the complainant had lodged a written complaint on October 27, 2025 alleging that the accused, who serves in the Indian Army, had been visiting her house and “hypnotised her for sexual favour.”

The complaint alleged that the woman was a minor at the time and that the accused had been sexually exploiting her for the past three years. She further alleged that he showed her pornographic videos on his mobile phone to provoke her into establishing sexual relations.

The FIR also accused him of threatening the complainant with dire consequences if she disclosed the matter to anyone and allegedly threatening to circulate her nude photographs on Facebook, WhatsApp and other social media platforms to defame her.

The complainant additionally alleged that the accused’s brother would call her seeking “sexual favour” in exchange for money and would allegedly abuse her when she refused.

Following the complaint, police registered the case under Sections 4, 6, 12 and 15 of the POCSO Act along with Sections 64, 65, 75, 351 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

However, during the course of investigation, the complainant moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua seeking re-recording of her statement. According to the court order, she stated that her earlier allegations were “not based on true and correct facts” and alleged that she had been influenced and pressured by police officials to make statements against the accused.

The woman also filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court at Kathua stating that she had been “ill-advised, tutored and influenced” by police officials at a time when she wanted to marry the petitioner.

Her statement was later recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, where she stated that she had been in a relationship with the accused for three years and had lodged the FIR after believing that he had cheated her because he stopped answering her calls for a month.

“She got scared and thereafter she was ill advised and influenced by her relatives and police officials of Himachal to lodge the FIR,” the High Court order noted while reproducing her statement.

The woman further informed the Magistrate that she had since attained majority and married the accused and did not want any legal action against him. The court was also informed that the couple had jointly filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

The anticipatory bail plea had earlier been rejected by the trial court primarily citing the statutory bar under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

During the High Court hearing, counsel appearing for the Union Territory opposed the bail plea citing the gravity of allegations and the statutory restrictions applicable in such offences. However, counsel appearing for the complainant informed the court that she had no objection to grant of bail.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the complainant had clearly stated before the Magistrate that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR under the influence of relatives and police officials.

Allowing the plea, the court directed that the accused be released on bail in the event of arrest upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs 25,000 along with a personal bond of the same amount.

The court imposed conditions that the accused shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, threaten witnesses, leave the territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court, and shall regularly appear before the trial court.