news details |
|
|
| Court grants bail in marriage-promise case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 19: The Fast Track Court Jammu has granted bail to a Poonch resident accused of establishing physical relations with a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage, while taking note of an earlier criminal case that ended in a closure report and an alleged demand of Rs 20 lakh, which remains under investigation.
Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, granted bail to Mohd Tariq, son of Mohd Ayoub, resident of Kallar Kattal, Tehsil Surankote, District Poonch, in FIR No. 245/2025 registered at Police Station Nagrota under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the accused and the complainant came into contact while pursuing their education in Jammu. The accused allegedly developed a relationship with the woman and established physical relations with her after repeatedly assuring her of marriage.
During the hearing, Advocate Vikram Rathore appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra represented the UT of J&K.
The defence submitted that the accused had been falsely implicated and highlighted an earlier FIR No. 206/2025 registered under Section 64 BNS and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, in which the present complainant was cited as a witness.
It was contended that the earlier investigation had culminated in a closure report and that the present FIR was registered after the accused allegedly refused to meet a demand of Rs 20 lakh.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, maintaining that the accused had allegedly established physical relations through deceitful means and that the investigation was still underway.
After examining the case diary and rival submissions, the Court observed that the investigation in the earlier FIR had resulted in a closure report, primarily because the alleged victim had not supported the prosecution’s version.
The Court further noted that the complainant in the present case was an adult and educated woman, a circumstance it considered while examining the allegation of deceitful inducement.
Significantly, the Court observed that the investigating agency was also examining whether the present FIR was connected with the closure of the earlier criminal case and the alleged demand of Rs 20 lakh.
The Court noted that the accused had been in custody since August 27, 2026, and that the investigation had substantially been completed. The statement of the complainant under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had also been recorded.
It further observed that the offence alleged against the petitioner did not carry punishment of life imprisonment or death, which was another circumstance favouring the grant of bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court held that a case for granting bail had been made out.
Accordingly, the accused was admitted to bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds of Rs 30,000 each, subject to the conditions that he cooperate with further investigation, refrain from intimidating prosecution witnesses and not tamper with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
