The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, on April 25, 2025, granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to a 74-year-old man accused of rape by his daughter-in-law. The case, registered under FIR No. 5/2025 at Police Station Nowshera, involved serious charges under Sections 333, 64, 76, 115(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
“There is prima facie merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, a case of grant of interim indulgence is made out in favour of the petitioner,” stated Justice Sanjay Dhar while passing the order.
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The petitioner, Mohd. Ayub, through his counsel Advocate Aseem Sawhney, argued that due to his advanced age, it was improbable for him to commit such an act. He claimed that the complaint was a retaliatory move driven by a property dispute following his son’s death. The prosecutrix had remarried and, according to the petitioner, was attempting to forcibly claim a share in his property.
A civil suit regarding the land in Village Hanjana Thakra, Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri is already ongoing between the parties. The petitioner also submitted an interim court order from the Sub-Judge, Nowshera, favoring him in the civil matter.
“The prosecutrix has re-married and at the behest of her husband, she wants to grab a share in the petitioner’s property. The FIR is a tool to exert pressure,” argued the defense.
The petitioner contended that the criminal allegations are inconsistent. While the FIR accused him of outraging her modesty and physical assault, new and more serious allegations of rape surfaced only during her statement under Section 164-A CrPC, which were not mentioned in the initial complaint.
“The prosecutrix has introduced a new story during investigation—alleging two incidents of forcible sexual assault, which were not stated in the original FIR,” said the counsel.
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Clarifies MCI Guidelines on Non-Medical Faculty Appointments
The bail plea had earlier been partly rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, who granted relief only to the co-accused—Ayub’s wife—prompting the current petition before the High Court.
Considering the submissions, the High Court directed that if the petitioner is arrested, he should be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
“He shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, appear before the Judicial Magistrate on the scheduled dates, refrain from tampering with witnesses, and not leave the Union Territory without court permission.”
The court also issued notice to the respondents and directed the SHO concerned to serve notice to the prosecutrix. The case is now listed for further hearing on July 15, 2025.
APPEARANCE
Aseem Sawhney, Advocate For Petitioner
Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for Respondents
Case-Title: Mohd. Ayub vs UT of J&K, 2025
