Ajaz Ahmed v. UT of J&K & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Through: Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Anr. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA for R-1 Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate for R-2 SI Deepak Katoch-IO, is present. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER (17.07.2026)
Petitioner, through the medium of this bail application, seeks grant of pre-arrest in his favour in case FIR No. 83/2025 registered against him on 30.09.2025 at Police Station, Manjakote, Rajouri, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023, and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on a complaint moved by the respondent No. 2/complainant, allegedly, falsely implicating the petitioner and after his application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
This Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 had admitted the petitioner to interim bail in anticipation of his arrest subject to certain conditions. 2 Bail App. No. 346/2025
Objections have been filed by the official respondent No. 1 as well as by the respondent No. 2-(complainant). Today, I.O., namely, SI Deepak Katoch, is present along with the case diary and submits that the investigation of the case is in progress as only two witnesses are left to be examined; statement of prosecutrix/victim has already been recorded and that no condition at the time of grant of interim bail has been violated by the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the interim bail granted to the petitioner earlier vide order dated 03.12.2025, is made absolute with the same conditions as was mentioned in the said order.
The present bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. JAMMU 17.07.2026 SUNIL (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.