SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted regular bail to a serving Army personnel facing trial in a rape case registered in Samba district, observing that the circumstances of the case and the settled principles governing bail did not warrant his continued detention.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani allowed the successive bail petition filed by Anoop M, a 26-year-old soldier posted with the 63 Rashtriya Rifles Battalion, in FIR No. 0145/2025 registered at Bari Brahmana Police Station under Sections 126(2), 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The order was pronounced on November 5.
The court directed his release on furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs 1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions prohibiting him from threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses, committing any further offence or leaving the country without prior permission. He has also been directed to deposit his passport, if any, with the trial court.
The case arose from an incident alleged to have taken place on September 23, 2025, when the complainant was returning home from university. According to the prosecution, the accused, an Army personnel, allegedly attacked her, wrongfully confined her, intimidated her and committed rape.
The FIR was registered against an unidentified person on September 23, 2025. The accused was arrested on September 30, 2025, and, according to his petition, had remained in custody since October 9 that year, with his detention continuing at District Jail Kathua.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations were serious and that the investigation had established the accused’s involvement. The Deputy Advocate General, Vishal Bharti, assisted by advocate Vivek Mattoo, submitted that the complainant and other material witnesses had recorded statements before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The prosecution further submitted that the complainant had identified the accused during a test identification parade conducted in the presence of a Magistrate. It maintained that the alleged offence under Section 64 BNS, particularly in view of the maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life, attracted the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 480(1)(i) of the BNSS.
Seeking his release, the petitioner’s counsel, Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, assisted by advocate Arun Pratap Singh, argued that there was no credible material connecting their client with the alleged offences and that he had been falsely implicated.
The defence also pointed out that the accused was a serving soldier and the sole earning male member of his family. His continued incarceration, it submitted, had caused severe financial difficulties for his parents, sister and wife. The petition also referred to a loan taken from the State Bank of India and the bank’s threat to take possession of his residential house over non-payment of instalments.
The defence further submitted that the accused had no criminal antecedents, was presumed innocent until proven guilty and would neither influence prosecution witnesses nor evade the trial.
The High Court noted that the accused had earlier approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Samba, for bail during the investigation, but his application was rejected on November 18, 2025, primarily because the investigation had not been completed. After the police filed the challan, he moved a second application before the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, on December 16, 2025. That plea was rejected on January 23, 2026, without examination of the merits, while the challan was also de-committed for compliance with Section 521 of the BNSS.
The matter subsequently came before the High Court through a successive bail petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure.
Examining the case record, including the statements of the complainant and her father recorded before a Magistrate during the investigation, Justice Wani noted that the matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Samba. Charges had been framed against the accused, who had pleaded not guilty, and the case was at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. However, none of the prosecution witnesses had been examined by the trial court.
Addressing the prosecution’s objection regarding the statutory restriction on bail, the High Court examined the scope of Section 480 of the BNSS in relation to offences punishable with life imprisonment. The judge observed that the restriction was not applicable in the manner suggested by the prosecution to offences where life imprisonment was prescribed as a maximum alternative punishment rather than as an alternative to the death penalty.
The court emphasised that the seriousness of an allegation, by itself, could not determine the outcome of a bail application and that the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or interfering with prosecution evidence had to be assessed in the circumstances of each case.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand, the High Court reiterated the principle that “bail not jail” should ordinarily guide the exercise of judicial discretion, except where circumstances justify continued detention, including the likelihood of the accused absconding, intimidating witnesses or obstructing the course of justice.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reiterating that the purpose of bail was to secure an accused person’s presence at trial and that pre-trial detention should not become a form of punishment.
It further referred to judgments in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Pankaj Jain v. Union of India, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi while discussing the principles governing the grant of bail.
The judge observed that judicial discretion must balance an individual’s liberty with the interests of society and the requirements of a fair trial, taking into account the nature of the allegations, available evidence, severity of punishment and the possibility of witnesses being influenced.
“The guiding factors/underlying principles that have been from time to time evolved by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts of our Country including this Court for consideration of a bail application jointly or severally do not justify the denial of bail to the petitioner/accused in the backdrop of the facto legal scenario of the case,” the court observed.
The judgment also recorded that the accused had earlier been granted interim bail on humanitarian grounds following the death of his mother, enabling him to participate in her last rites. The relief was granted through orders dated October 5 and October 23, 2026, and remained valid until November 7.
Allowing the petition, the High Court ordered his release on regular bail subject to the prescribed bonds and conditions.
The court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the consideration of the bail application and should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
The complainant, who was impleaded as a respondent without disclosure of her identity, did not appear despite being given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
