Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s Decision
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently issued an anticipatory bail to a police sub-inspector (SI) accused of exploiting a woman constable under false promises of marriage. The case, titled Vikrant Kotwal v. UT of J&K, was presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Background of the Case
The woman constable alleged that the police SI, Vikrant Kotwal, had engaged in a sexual relationship with her by deceitfully promising marriage, despite being married with two children. She claimed that their relationship lasted for a year, during which she became pregnant twice and was persuaded to terminate both pregnancies.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhar noted the complainant’s acknowledgment that she continued the relationship even after learning of the SI’s marital status. This led to a prima facie perspective that the relationship may have been consensual. The Court remarked, “The material on record suggests that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were deeply in love with each other, which resulted in sexual intercourse between the two.”
Anticipatory Bail Considerations
Analyzing the risk of absconding, the Court highlighted the SI’s ties to the police department, which exercises both investigative and disciplinary control over him. Justice Dhar reasoned that the likelihood of the SI fleeing is minimal, given these constraints.
Legal Proceedings
Kotwal faced criminal charges under Sections 69, 83, 88, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant’s grievances included false marriage promises and emotional manipulation, leading to her third pregnancy and eventual relationship termination. An FIR was registered based on these allegations, prompting Kotwal to seek anticipatory bail after a sessions court denial.
More Read
High Court’s Rationale
The Court found the prolonged nature of the relationship indicative of consensual interaction unless contradicted by other evidence. Furthermore, Justice Dhar questioned the authenticity of the complainant’s claims of being deceived, as she stayed in the relationship after discovering the subsisting marriage.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate K Nirmal Kotwal, with Advocate RS Isher, represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti and Advocate Vasudha Sharma represented the respondents.
The High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail underscores the nuanced considerations of consent and deception within complex interpersonal dynamics, reflecting on both legal and societal implications.
