SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Rajat Kumar, who has been declared a proclaimed offender in a rape case involving a minor in Kathua district, observing that an accused declared an absconder is ordinarily not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition after holding that Kumar had failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention by the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court. The court also noted that he had been declared a proclaimed offender and had not joined the investigation for years.
The case arises from FIR No. 110/2022 registered at Police Station Billawar under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the investigation, offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were also included in the charge sheet, as the alleged victim was found to be a minor at the time of the incident.
According to the prosecution, the girl lodged a written complaint on August 16, 2022, alleging that the accused had sexually assaulted her in a maize field in her village. The High Court order records that she subsequently reiterated the allegations in her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The investigation established the complainant’s date of birth as January 15, 2005, based on her school records. The police later filed the charge sheet before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, stating that the accused had absconded despite efforts to trace him across Jammu and Kashmir. The trial court subsequently declared him a proclaimed offender and ordered the issuance of general warrants of arrest.
Kumar approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest, arguing that there was uncertainty over the identity of the accused because the complainant had referred to the alleged offender as Laddo in her police complaint and Ashok alias Laddo in her statement before the magistrate. He contended that the discrepancy justified granting him anticipatory bail.
The petitioner also argued that he was residing outside Jammu and Kashmir and that he had not received notice from the investigating agency. His counsel maintained that being declared an absconder should not, by itself, prevent him from obtaining pre-arrest bail.
Rejecting these arguments, Justice Dhar observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated any special or compelling circumstance to justify approaching the High Court directly. The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that an accused should ordinarily first seek anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, even though both courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
The High Court further observed that the petitioner’s claim of residing outside Jammu and Kashmir was insufficient to justify bypassing the Sessions Court, particularly when he had not disclosed his present address in the petition.
On the question of his alleged non-cooperation, the court noted that the Sessions Court had considered material and police statements relating to efforts to trace him before declaring him a proclaimed offender. In these circumstances, the High Court declined to accept his contention that he was unaware of the case against him.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma and Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that an accused who absconds and is declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, except in extreme and exceptional circumstances.
The court also examined the discrepancy in the names mentioned by the complainant. It held that statements recorded during the investigation established the identity of the alleged offender as Rajat alias Laddo, son of Jagdish Raj, of Village Kohag in Billawar tehsil of Kathua district, whose particulars matched those of the petitioner.
Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
The order was pronounced on October 12, 2026, at Jammu.
