Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ali Mohd. Th. Wife Salima Begum vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 7 March, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Serial No. 79
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 296/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 866/2023
CrlM Nos. 2151/2023, 658/2024,
1166/2024, 1689/2023 & 1690/2023
Ali Mohd. Th. Wife Salima Begum .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. H. C. Jalmeria, Advocate
vs
UT of J&K and anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
07.03.2025
Bail App No. 296/2024
1. This application is for grant of bail in FIR No. 0222/2023 registered
with Police Station Samba on 14.09.2023 under Section 376(2)(l),
313, 420, 506 IPC. The petitioner had earlier moved the bail
application before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba but
the same was rejected vide order dated 25.11.2024. The petitioner has
also filed CRM(M) No. 866/2023 which is connected with the present
application for assailing the FIR registered against the petitioner and
the common grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the present
bail application as well as in the petition for quashing the FIR.
2. It is stated that the complainant has herself claimed to be the wife of
the petitioner, regarding which, she had initiated the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before JMIC, Billawar. The application of
2 Bail App No. 296/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 866/2023
the complainant was resisted by the petitioner in the month of
November, 2022 and thereafter, false and frivolous FIR was registered
on 14.09.2023. The petitioner has placed on record the application
filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
for grant of maintenance. The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2023 as
is evident from the charge sheet produced by Mr. H. C. Jalmeria,
Advocate. It needs to be noted that the petitioner had also filed
miscellaneous application for grant of bail along with CRM(M) No.
866/2023 and the complainant had responded to same by submitting
that she does not oppose the petition for quashing the application filed
by the petitioner along with petition for quashing the FIR.
3. The respondent No. 1 has filed response, stating therein the factual
aspects of the case. In the objections, it is stated that offence under
Section 313 IPC could not be proved but offences under Section
376(2) (L)/420/506 IPC stand proved against the petitioner.
4. Mr. H. C. Jalmeria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody for the last more than 1.5 years and in view of
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves
to be enlarged on bail when the complainant herself has admitted that
she is the wife of the petitioner and has filed the objection stating
therein that she does not oppose the petition for quashing the FIR and
bail application.
5. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature, as such, no
leniency deserves to be shown to the petitioner.
3 Bail App No. 296/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 866/2023
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Normally this Court would not have granted the bail in view of serious
allegations but taking into consideration that the complainant herself
has stated that she is the wife of the petitioner and she has no objection
to the petition for quashing the FIR and the application for grant of
bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to
be enlarged on bail particularly when the petitioner has been in
custody since September, 2023. Accordingly, the present bail
application is allowed, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall furnish two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs.
50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial court and personal bond of
the like amount.
(ii) That he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of
hearing.
(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of UT of J&K
without prior permission of the trial court.
(iv) That he shall not make any attempt to contact with the prosecutrix or
any of the witnesses during the course of trial.
8. Disposed of.
CRM(M) No. 866/2023
9. Mr. H. C. Jalmeria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to
raise the grounds urged in the present petition before the trial court.
4 Bail App No. 296/2024
c/w
CRM(M) No. 866/2023
10. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as
prayed for.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
07.03.2025
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
NEHA KUMARI
2025.03.10 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document