| Rape, forgery allegations: Fast Track Court denies anticipatory bail | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 24: The Fast Track Court, Jammu, has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Liaqat Ali of Barjaini, Samba, in connection with a 2017 case involving allegations of rape, abduction, forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy. Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh dismissed the application on September 24, observing that the allegations were serious and required a comprehensive investigation. Advocates Amit Gupta and Gagan Oswal appeared for the petitioner, while APP Ajay Dogra represented the UT of J&K. The petitioner had sought protection from arrest in FIR No. 256/2017 registered at Police Station Domana for offences under Sections 366, 465, 471, 109, 506 and 120-B RPC. During investigation, offences under Sections 376 and 420 RPC were also added.
According to the prosecution case, the woman came into contact with the petitioner while she was pursuing a nursing course and staying in rented accommodation at Bari Brahmana. The case diary records allegations that she was later threatened, taken against her will, pressured to convert religion and subjected to sexual intercourse without consent. The allegations remain subject to investigation and trial.
The court also noted allegations concerning the preparation of marriage and conversion documents. It observed that the woman had appeared before the High Court through virtual mode in July 2025 and denied having filed or authorised a joint petition in which she was shown as a petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court thereafter vacated the earlier interim direction and permitted the investigation to proceed.
The Fast Track Court further observed that the circumstances surrounding the alleged Nikah Nama, conversion certificate and subsequent marriage agreement raised questions requiring deeper investigation and could not be brushed aside at the bail stage.
Holding that the nature of the accusations, prima facie case and seriousness of the offences did not justify anticipatory bail at this stage, the court dismissed the application. It, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the bail proceedings and would have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(JNF) |
|
