The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of raping a woman in Bandipora, ruling that the trial court relied on irrelevant grounds while letting him walk free. Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the bail order, calling it "illegal and perverse."
The case, filed by the Union Territory of J&K through Police Station Sumbal, challenged a bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, on June 27, 2024, in favour of respondent Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on December 27, 2022. The woman's father had lodged a written complaint stating that his daughter was carrying cow dung to her farmland when the accused allegedly followed her, tore her clothes, and forcibly raped her. She was reportedly rescued by women working nearby.
An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 376 and 506 IPC. The accused was arrested two days later. During investigation, the woman's medical examination was conducted and her clothes sent for forensic testing, though no spermatozoa was found. An age verification test confirmed she was an adult.
Charges were framed in April 2023. By the time the bail plea was decided, only two of twelve prosecution witnesses the woman and her father had testified.
What the Trial Court Said
The Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail on several grounds: that the police report was apparently written by an officer rather than the father himself, the absence of spermatozoa on the seized clothing, non-seizure of a lighter and muffler allegedly used by the accused, a discrepancy in the site of occurrence, delay in lodging the complaint, and the fact that the accused had already spent over a year and a half in custody while the trial moved slowly.
High Court's Observations
Justice Dhar found these reasons unconvincing. The court noted that minor gaps like non-seizure of a lighter or muffler, or the absence of spermatozoa, cannot by themselves discredit a survivor's testimony if it otherwise holds up to cross-examination.
The bench observed,
"It is to be noted that at the time of considering a bail application, it is not open to a trial court to undertake meticulous analysis of the evidence recorded during the trial of the case."
The court also pointed out that the woman had no prior enmity with the accused that would explain a false complaint, and that other eyewitnesses people who allegedly rescued her were yet to be examined. It said the trial court should not have formed an opinion on the accused's involvement at such an early stage.
On the delay argument, the High Court noted that charges were framed only in April 2023, and two key witnesses were examined within a year after that meaning there was no real delay attributable to the prosecution that would justify bail on those grounds alone.
Importantly, the court flagged that the trial judge failed to weigh the gravity of the offence and its impact on society. Justice Dhar said,
"The severity of the offence becomes all the more grave because offence for which the accused is facing trial is an offence against women and granting bail in such cases at the very inception of the trial has a chilling effect on safety of women."
The judgment also leaned on Supreme Court precedents, including Imran vs Mohammad Bhava and Phireram vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which hold that bail can be cancelled by a higher court if the lower court ignored relevant material, the gravity of the offence, or its societal impact even without any fresh misconduct by the accused after release.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the Union Territory, set aside the trial court's bail order dated June 27, 2024, and cancelled the bail granted to Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie. He has been directed to surrender before the trial court within one month, after which he will be taken back into custody.
The court clarified that the accused can apply for bail again once statements of the remaining eyewitnesses are recorded. It also directed the trial court to fix a schedule for examining the other witnesses, with the prosecution required to cooperate in producing them.
A copy of the order was sent to the trial court, with instructions to initiate coercive measures if the accused fails to surrender on time.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K vs Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie
Case Number: Bail App No. 76/2024
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: June 5, 2026
