Introduction:

In the matter of Mohd. Ayub vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, through Justice Sanjay Dhar, granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a 74-year-old man, who was accused by his daughter-in-law of committing rape and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner challenged the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, which had granted relief to his wife but not to him. The High Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner’s claims, particularly in light of the age of the accused, the ongoing civil litigation over property, and the evolving nature of allegations, and issued notice while granting conditional interim protection against arrest.

Arguments from the Petitioner and the Respondent:

The petitioner, Mohd. Ayub, represented by Advocate Aseem Sawhney, approached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking anticipatory bail after being accused of heinous offences, including rape under BNS provisions by his daughter-in-law, who lodged an FIR at Police Station Nowshera. The FIR contained charges under Sections 333, 64, 76, 115(2), and 352 of the BNS. The petitioner contended that at the age of 74, it was highly implausible for him to have committed such acts, especially given the strained relationship stemming from a property dispute following the death of his son. He submitted that the prosecutrix had since remarried and allegedly used the criminal complaint as a tactic to pressure him for a share in the ancestral property. He further informed the court that civil litigation concerning this very property was already pending, and an interim order had been passed in his favour. According to the petitioner, the FIR was registered out of vengeance and as an abuse of the criminal justice system, and during the investigation, the prosecutrix introduced new allegations under her Section 164-A Crpc statement that were not initially part of the FIR. It was argued that this discrepancy indicated that the FIR lacked credibility and that granting bail was necessary to prevent misuse of the process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed the lack of medical or corroborative evidence and highlighted that his wife, who was also named in the FIR, had already been granted bail by the lower court. On the other hand, Bhanu Jasrotia, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, opposed the plea, asserting that the allegations were serious and involved sexual assault by a family member, a charge that warranted cautious judicial scrutiny. The State maintained that the investigation was at a critical stage and that granting anticipatory bail could affect the evidence or the statements of key witnesses.

Judgment:

Nonetheless, the High Court, after evaluating the petition, found that the petitioner had raised substantial grounds that merited the court’s indulgence. The court particularly considered the petitioner’s advanced age, the pendency of civil disputes between the parties, and the modification of allegations during the investigation process. It issued notice to the respondents and the prosecutrix to file their response within six weeks, and meanwhile directed that in case of arrest, the petitioner be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount. The court also imposed conditions that the petitioner must appear before the court when summoned and must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The order reflects a balanced approach where the court refrained from making final observations on merits at this preliminary stage, yet acknowledged the exceptional circumstances requiring protection of the petitioner until a fuller hearing takes place.