Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 711 (JK)

Rahid Rehman v. State of J&K

2015-12-31

B.S.WALIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Prayer has been made for grant of bail in FIR No. 92/2015, dated 31.08.2015 registered under Section 376 RPC at Police Station, Batote. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 on the basis of misunderstanding as to the intention of the applicant in marrying her. However, the petitioner married respondent No. 2 whereupon respondent No. 2 filed OWP No. 1511/2015 titled Shiana Banoo v. State & Anr. for quashing of FIR No. 92/2015. After consideration of the matter, High Court vide order dated 14.10.2015 directed the respondents not to proceed ahead in the matter. 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed an application for withdrawal of the said OWP No. 1511/2015 as after the execution of 'Nikahnama', the petitioner took U-turn and denied the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 and that at the time of execution of 'Nikahnama', respondent No. 2 had been influenced by the petitioner to approach the High Court for stay of FIR No. 92/2015 dated 31.08.2015 under Section 376 RPC but subsequently respondent No. 2 realized that she had been deceived to file the petition thereupon she approached the High Court for withdrawal of the writ petition which was allowed on 11.12.2015 and the interim direction of staying the FIR were also vacated. 3. However, the stand of respondent No. 2 in paragraph No. 2 of the objections is that she would be satisfied even as on date if the petitioner and his father and mother undertake before the High Court that they would treat respondent No. 2 as legally wedded wife of the petitioner and would not threaten her with elimination and would not pressurize her to go for abortion and would own the child in the womb and would provide all comforts to her as a family member and that in that eventuality, she would not have any objection to the grant of interim bail to the petitioner till the genuine grievance of respondent No. 2 was redressed. 4. On query from learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, it has been admitted that the signatures of respondent No. 2 and her father on 'Nikahnama' are genuine. In other words, 'Nikahnama' is genuinely accepted document. 5. 4. On query from learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, it has been admitted that the signatures of respondent No. 2 and her father on 'Nikahnama' are genuine. In other words, 'Nikahnama' is genuinely accepted document. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the apprehension expressed by respondent No. 2 as has been referred to above is baseless and that the petitioner not only admits the execution of 'Nikahnama' and of solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 but also of accepting the child as conceived by respondent No. 2 to be his and further that respondent No. 2 would be taken care of as befitting the status of his wife, she would not be held out any threat of harm nor she would be asked to abort the child and if despite the assurance of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was still aggrieved with regard to non-adherence by the petitioner to his assurance, she would be at liberty to take recourse to proceedings in a Court of law for appropriate orders with regard to maintenance for herself as well as child as also to seek cancellation of bail of the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that continued detention of the petitioner would not sub-serve any interest. 6. I have considered the matter and am of the view that in the circumstances as referred to above, i.e. solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and of the petitioner acknowledging respondent No. 2 having conceived his child and also assuring to maintain and support respondent No. 2 as well as child in womb/to be born, as also not to cause any harm to respondent No. 2, continued detention of the petitioner would not sub-serve the interest of justice nor be conducive to respondent No. 2's desire to live with the petitioner and his family despite the fact that the execution of 'Nikahnama' i.e. Annexure-B is of a date subsequent to registration of the FIR. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to surety bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be executed to the satisfaction of the Sub-Judge/C JM Batote. However, nothing said in this order would be taken to be an expression on merits of the case. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to surety bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be executed to the satisfaction of the Sub-Judge/C JM Batote. However, nothing said in this order would be taken to be an expression on merits of the case. Release of the petitioner on bail is further subject to the conditions that:- "(i) The petitioner would not directly or in-directly hold out any threat to respondent No. 2 nor pressurize respondent No. 2 to take out proceedings for seeking cancellation of FIR nor would in any manner tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses in the case registered against him; (ii) The petitioner would gracefully take respondent No. 2 to reside along with him and maintain respondent No. 2 as his wife and take due care of respondent No. 2 as well as child to be born as well as of child after birth of the child; (iii) The petitioner would also ensure that no harm befalls respondent No. 2/child to be born to respondent No. 2 at the hands of any person; and (iv) The petitioner would not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the Court." 8. It is made clear that in case of non-adherence by the petitioner to either of the conditions laid down above, respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. Disposed of along with MP No. 01/2015 in the aforesaid terms.