SRINAGAR: A Fast Track Court in Jammu has granted anticipatory bail to a university student accused in a case registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), observing that a long-term relationship between two adults that did not culminate in marriage could not automatically amount to a criminal offence.
The order was passed by the Court of Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, in an anticipatory bail application arising out of FIR No. 83/2026 registered at Police Station Domana.
The petitioner, Rohit Bhagat alias Kumar, son of Joginder Lal and a resident of Dei Chack Bhadrore Jammu, had approached the court seeking protection against arrest.
The petitioner appeared in person along with Advocate Tanvir Khan, while the Union Territory of JK was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra.
Petitioner Challenges FIR
According to the bail application, the petitioner is pursuing B.Sc studies at Jammu University and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
The defence informed the court that the petitioner had already challenged the FIR before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which on May 15, 2026, directed that the investigation in the matter could continue but final report should not be filed without permission of the High Court.
The petitioner submitted before the court that he and the complainant had been in a relationship since 2020 and had voluntarily established a physical relationship during the course of their association.
According to the defence, the relationship later turned sour and did not culminate in marriage, which “per se is no offence in law.”
The petitioner argued that he had never intended to cheat or deceive the complainant and further submitted that the investigation in the case had substantially been completed.
The defence also contended that the alleged offence did not carry the punishment of death or life imprisonment and therefore the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
Opposing the bail application, the prosecution argued that the allegations against the accused were grave, serious and non-bailable in nature.
The prosecution submitted that the investigation in the case was still in progress and a grant of anticipatory bail at that stage would send an “unhealthy message” to society.
The prosecution accordingly sought rejection of the bail application.
Court Examines
After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary produced by Investigating Officer ASI R.S. Bahu, the court observed that the petitioner and prosecutrix had remained in contact for nearly five years.
The court noted that the two had met in 2020, exchanged mobile numbers and continued communicating for around three years before establishing physical relations.
According to the investigation referred to in the order, the relationship eventually deteriorated after the petitioner allegedly switched off his phone.
The prosecutrix had also alleged that the petitioner took nude photographs of her during the relationship to blackmail her.
However, the court recorded that no such photographs had been produced before investigators till date.
The order further noted that the prosecutrix had refused to undergo medical examination during investigation.
Supreme Court Judgment
While considering the bail plea, the court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare vs State of Maharashtra (2024) 11 SCC 398.
Quoting paragraph 34 of the judgment, the court observed: “In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact.”
The Fast Track Court observed that a relationship spanning nearly five years between two adults could not be ignored while examining the allegations.
“Relationship of nearly five years is no less duration between two adults,” the court noted.
Bail Granted
The court further observed that investigation in the case had “substantially been completed” and also took note of the fact that the offence under Section 69 BNS is not punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment.
Taking these circumstances into account, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application.
The court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds of Rs 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
The court also imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with further investigation, refrain from intimidating prosecution witnesses and not tamper with prosecution evidence.
The matter was accordingly disposed of and consigned to records.
