The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to a 74-year-old petitioner accused of rape by his daughter-in-law. The FIR also includes charges under Sections 333, 76, 115(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The order was passed by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who noted that the petitioner’s submissions raised prima facie grounds warranting the court’s indulgence.

The petitioner contended that the charges were fabricated and motivated by a property dispute. He submitted that the complainant, his daughter-in-law, had remarried after the death of her husband (the petitioner’s son) and allegedly sought a share in his property. He claimed that the FIR was filed as a means to exert pressure in an ongoing civil litigation, in which an interim injunction had already been passed in his favor.

It was further submitted that the initial FIR did not mention the allegations of rape. The complainant later introduced these allegations during her statement recorded under Section 164-A CrPC, alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her on two occasions after her husband’s death.

In the FIR lodged at Police Station Nowshera, the prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner had attempted to outrage her modesty by forcibly touching her and that both the petitioner and his wife had assaulted her and torn her clothes. A charge sheet was later filed for the aforementioned offences under the BNS.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, had earlier rejected the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail while granting it to his wife, prompting the present petition before the High Court.

Taking note of the circumstances and the petitioner’s age, the High Court directed that, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on ad-interim bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The bail is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence in court as and when required, and refraining from tampering with evidence.

The court also issued notice to the respondents, including the prosecutrix through the local Station House Officer (SHO), and sought their response within six weeks.

Case Title: Mohd. Ayub vs UT of J&K, 2025
Counsel: Aseem Sawhney, Advocate for Petitioner; Bhanu Jasrotia, Government Advocate for Respondents