SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a Pulwama man accused in a POCSO case involving his minor niece, holding that the bail granted during the investigation was “too premature” and that the accused could potentially influence the child witness.
Justice M A Chowdhary set aside the July 11, 2025 order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, and directed the accused, Rayees Ahmad Shah of Rahmoo, Rajpora, to surrender before the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpora, if the investigation is still pending. If the investigation has concluded and the chargesheet has been filed, he has been directed to surrender before the competent court within one week of the High Court judgment.
The judgment was pronounced on September 14, 2026, in a petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Rajpora challenging the Sessions Court’s order granting bail to Shah. The UT was represented by Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar, while Shah was represented by Advocate Tariq M Shah.
The case arose from a complaint lodged on June 13, 2025, by Umair Ayoub Bhat of Shankerpora, Pakherpora, concerning his sister, whose name has been withheld. According to the complaint, the girl, then stated to be 16 years old, had gone to stay at her maternal aunt’s house at Rahmoo.
The complaint alleged that on the evening of May 27, 2025, when the girl went to sleep in a room, Shah, identified as her maternal uncle, entered the room, allegedly attempted to molest her, forcibly grabbed her and touched her in a manner that caused her pain. He was also alleged to have threatened her with consequences if she disclosed the incident.
The court order records that the girl managed to escape and later narrated the incident to her maternal aunt. She was allegedly advised not to disclose it to anyone because it would bring disrepute to the family. She eventually told her brother, who approached the police.
Police Station Rajpora registered FIR No. 56/2025 initially under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. During investigation, the police inspected the alleged place of occurrence, prepared a site plan, had the victim medically examined and obtained her date of birth.
The investigation subsequently established that the girl was about 14 years old on the date of the alleged occurrence. Her statement was also recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. After the investigation revealed that the accused was the maternal uncle of the victim and that she had been staying at his house, Section 9 of the POCSO Act was invoked in place of Section 8.
The accused was arrested after the police, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, found him allegedly involved in offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act. He moved a bail application before the Sessions Court on June 24, 2025, which was allowed on July 11, 2025, subject to conditions. The UT subsequently approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Before the High Court, the UT argued that the evidence collected during investigation was sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged offences and that the Sessions Court had failed to give due weight to the material on record. It argued that the bail order suffered from perversity and irrelevant considerations and therefore warranted interference.
The prosecution also stressed the gravity of the allegations and argued that the alleged offence had been committed against a minor by a close relative. It contended that no bail ought to have been granted in the circumstances of the case.
Opposing the petition, Shah argued that the UT had failed to establish any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the Sessions Court’s order. His counsel submitted that the court had considered the relevant circumstances before granting bail and imposed appropriate conditions.
The defence also pointed out that there was no allegation that Shah had violated any bail condition, absconded, interfered with the investigation, threatened or influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence or otherwise misused the liberty granted to him. The defence accordingly sought dismissal of the UT’s petition.
Justice Chowdhary, however, found that the circumstances of the case required the bail plea to be considered from the perspective of whether granting bail would advance or obstruct the course of justice.
The court noted that the victim had made an incriminating statement before a Magistrate which supported the version contained in the FIR. It also took note of the fact that the alleged incident had occurred in the house of close relatives and that the accused was himself a close relative of the child.
“In such a situation, the Court below should have considered the bail plea, in light of the perspective as to whether the grant of bail will enhance the course of justice or thwart the same,” the High Court said.
The court further examined Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which provide for statutory presumptions in specified circumstances. While noting that these presumptions operate after the accused is charge-sheeted and are not applicable for deciding bail before framing of charges, the court said they nevertheless reflected the sensitivity of the POCSO legislation and its objective of protecting children from sexual violence.
On the question of the timing of the bail, the High Court held that the Sessions Court had granted relief while the investigation was still underway and had not waited for its completion.
“The grant of bail in favour of the Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, was too premature to be granted during the investigation of the case,” Justice Chowdhary observed.
The court said the accused, being the husband of the victim’s maternal aunt, “may have exerted pressure and tried to influence the hapless child not to depose against him during trial.” It added that it would have been in the interests of justice for the Sessions Court to have declined bail until the victim was examined before the trial court after framing of charges.
At the same time, the High Court acknowledged the settled legal distinction between refusing bail at the initial stage and cancelling bail that has already been granted. It observed that “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary” for cancellation of an existing bail order.
The court said interference with the administration of justice, attempts to evade the course of justice, abuse of the concession of bail or the possibility of the accused absconding could constitute grounds for cancellation.
In the present case, however, the High Court found that the early grant of bail, while the investigation remained incomplete, created the possibility of the accused hampering the investigation or tampering with prosecution evidence.
“For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, the impugned Order, whereby bail was granted in favour of the Respondent, having regard to the given facts as narrated hereinabove, is found to be suffering from perversity,” the court held.
Allowing the UT’s petition, the court set aside the Sessions Court’s July 11, 2025 order and cancelled the bail granted to Shah. It directed him to surrender before Police Station Rajpora if the investigation remains pending, or before the competent court if the investigation has concluded and the chargesheet has been filed.
The surrender has to take place within one week from the date of the High Court judgment, failing which the court said coercive steps would be taken to secure his custody. The bail application and connected proceedings were disposed of accordingly.
