The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has granted anticipatory bail to an Indian Army soldier accused of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court took notice of the fact that the prosecutrix, upon attaining majority, had married the accused and deposed before a magistrate that her initial allegations were made under the influence and pressure of relatives and police officials.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a written report lodged on October 27, 2025, by Tanu Devi (respondent no. 2) against the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, and his brother at the Women Police Station, Kathua. On this complaint, FIR No. 0018/2025 was registered under Sections 4, 6, 12, and 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 64, 65, 75, 351, and 352 of the BNS, 2023.
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was represented before the High Court by advocate Mr. Amit Gupta.
In her initial complaint, the prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner, who was serving in the Indian Army, started visiting her house and “hypnotised her for sexual favour.” She alleged that she was a minor at the time and that the petitioner had been misusing her to fulfill his “sexual lust” for the previous three years. She further claimed that the petitioner showed her pornography videos on his mobile phone to instigate and provoke her to establish sexual relations, and subsequently threatened her with dire consequences if the incident was disclosed. Additionally, the complainant alleged that the petitioner threatened to post her nude photographs on Facebook, WhatsApp, and other social media handles to defame her, and that the petitioner’s brother called her to request sexual favors in exchange for money, using filthy language upon her refusal.
However, during the investigation, the prosecutrix applied to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua, to re-record her statement, averring that her previous statement was not based on true and correct facts. She alleged that she had been “influenced and pressurised by police officials to make statements against the petitioner.”
She subsequently moved an application along with an affidavit in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua (“the trial Court”), stating that she was “ill advised, tutored and influenced by the police officials because at that time she only wanted to marry the petitioner.” She stated that she had attained the age of majority and wished to marry the petitioner without further delay.
In a statement subsequently recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, the prosecutrix deposed that she had been in love with the petitioner for three years. She explained that after the petitioner failed to answer her calls for a month, she feared she had been cheated, got scared, and was subsequently “ill advised and influenced by her relatives and police officials of Himachal to lodge the FIR.” She stated that having attained majority, she had married the petitioner, did not want any legal action against him, and had filed a joint petition with him in the High Court to quash the FIR.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), after his application before the trial court was rejected. The trial court had declined relief “primarily in view of bar contained in Section 482(4) of BNSS.”
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Amit Gupta, argued that since the prosecutrix had married the petitioner after attaining the age of majority and had clearly deposed in the Magisterial Court that she lodged the FIR under the influence of police officials and her relatives, no offence was made out against him.
The application was opposed on behalf of the state by Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (respondent no. 1), who argued against the grant of bail based on the gravity of the charge and the statutory bar contained under Section 482(4) of the BNSS.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent (the prosecutrix, Tanu Devi), stated that his client had no objection to the grant of bail in favor of the petitioner.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri went through the record of the case and noted that the factual position was undisputed. The Court observed:
“The admitted position emerging from the record is that the prosecutrix-private respondent, in her statement before the Magistrate, has clearly stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had lodged the FIR against him and his brother on the advice of the police officials and her relatives. She also stated that she is married to the petitioner now and wanted to live with him.”
Given that the prosecutrix expressed no objection to the grant of bail, the High Court allowed the petitioner’s application. The Court directed that, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a surety bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and a personal recognizance bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The grant of bail was made subject to the following conditions:
- He shall not jump over bail, tamper with the prosecution evidence, and threaten prosecution witnesses;
- He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the UT of J&K without prior permission of the trial Court; and
- He shall regularly appear before the trial court.
Case Details
- Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. UT of J&K and Another
- Case No.: Bail App No. 377/2025
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Sekhri
- Date of Decision: May 18, 2026
