SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted anticipatory bail to Police Sub-Inspector Vikrant Kotwal in a case arising from allegations of sexual exploitation of a female police colleague on the promise of marriage, holding that her continued relationship with him after learning that he was already married prima facie indicated a consensual relationship.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on September 11, 2026 in Bail Application No. 156/2026, setting aside the Principal Sessions Judge Samba’s order of July 23, which had rejected Kotwal’s plea for pre-arrest bail.
Kotwal is accused in FIR No. 178/2026 registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 69, 83, 88 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court directed that he be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000 and a personal bond of the same amount.
The case arose from a complaint by a 25-year-old woman constable posted at Police Station Samba. According to the complaint, she came into contact with Kotwal in September 2024 while both were posted at the station and later entered into a live-in relationship after he repeatedly assured her that he would marry her.
The complainant alleged that she became pregnant twice during the relationship and was persuaded by Kotwal to terminate both pregnancies on assurances that they would marry. She later discovered that Kotwal was already married and had two children.
According to her allegations, Kotwal continued assuring her that he would separate from his wife and marry her, and the relationship continued despite her becoming aware of his marital status. She alleged that they subsequently underwent a marriage ceremony conducted by a Pandit on May 4, 2025.
The complainant later became pregnant for a third time, according to the case record. She alleged that after she informed Kotwal about the pregnancy, he blocked her contacts and stopped communicating with her.
She also alleged that Kotwal physically assaulted her after she threatened to approach senior police authorities over the relationship. The allegations included claims that he slapped her, pushed her inside a room and prevented her from leaving.
The complaint led to a fact-finding inquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Samba. During the inquiry, the officer examined the complainant’s statement, questioned Kotwal, obtained photographs relating to the alleged marriage and recorded the statement of the Pandit who had conducted the ceremony.
The inquiry officer recommended a detailed criminal investigation, observing that Kotwal, despite being married, had allegedly induced the complainant through assurances and promises of marriage. The FIR was subsequently registered.
Kotwal’s counsel, Senior Advocate K. Nirmal Kotwal and Advocate R.S. Isher, argued that the relationship was between two consenting adults and that the allegations did not establish that consent had been obtained through fraud or deception.
Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti, appearing for the Union Territory, and Advocate Vasudha Sharma, representing the complainant, opposed the bail plea. They argued that Kotwal had committed a serious offence, was evading arrest and could influence prosecution witnesses if granted protection from arrest.
The High Court examined the case diary and considered the principles governing anticipatory bail laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Justice Dhar also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Mahesh Danu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, concerning prolonged relationships and allegations based on promises of marriage.
The High Court noted that the complainant may initially have been unaware of Kotwal’s marital status. However, the court observed that she continued the relationship after learning that he was married and had two children, and subsequently entered into a marriage ceremony despite knowing that his existing marriage remained in force.
On that basis, the court held that, for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application, the material prima facie indicated that the relationship was consensual and was not based on consent obtained through a misconception of fact.
The court, however, clarified that it was premature at the bail stage to conduct a detailed assessment of the prosecution evidence. It said the investigating agency would have to examine whether the ingredients of the alleged offences, including cheating, were established.
The High Court also rejected the investigating agency’s contention that Kotwal was absconding. Justice Dhar noted that he had appeared before the departmental inquiry and responded to the questionnaire served on him. The court further observed that he continued to remain under the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department.
The court said the possibility of his absconding was therefore minimal and that the police department had the means to secure his attendance for investigation.
While granting anticipatory bail, the High Court directed Kotwal to remain available before the investigating officer and appear whenever required. He was restrained from interfering with the investigation or attempting to influence prosecution witnesses.
He was also directed not to leave the territorial limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission from the investigating officer.
The court further held that the investigating agency would be free to seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions were violated.
