The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Jammu has granted anticipatory bail to police officer Vikrant Kotwal in connection with an FIR alleging, among other things, that he had continued a relationship with the prosecutrix on assurances of marriage.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the judgment on September 11, 2026, while dealing with Bail Application No. 156/2026. The FIR was registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 69, 83, 88 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Background of the Case
According to the complaint, the prosecutrix came into contact with Kotwal in September 2024 while both were posted at Police Station Samba. She alleged that he proposed marriage and, following repeated assurances, they entered into a live-in relationship.
The complaint further alleged that she became pregnant twice during the relationship and was persuaded to terminate both pregnancies on assurances that they would marry. She later discovered that Kotwal was already married. Despite this, according to her allegations, the relationship continued and he allegedly kept assuring her that he would marry her.
The record states that the prosecutrix later claimed that she and Kotwal underwent a marriage ceremony in May 2025. She alleged that after subsequently informing him about another pregnancy, he blocked her and stopped communicating with her.
A departmental fact-finding inquiry was conducted before registration of the FIR. The Inquiry Officer examined the complainant, obtained photographs concerning the alleged marriage and recorded the statement of the priest who had performed the ceremony. The inquiry recommended a detailed investigation.
High Court Examines Consent Allegation
The High Court noted that the offences alleged were serious, but said the apparent genuineness of the allegations was also relevant while deciding an anticipatory bail plea.
The Court considered the fact that the prosecutrix allegedly continued the relationship even after learning that Kotwal was married and had children. It also noted that she subsequently entered into a marriage ceremony with him despite knowing his existing marital status.
"From these circumstances, it can prima facie be inferred that her relationship with the petitioner was consensual in nature."
The Court clarified that it was not conducting a detailed examination of the merits of the allegations at the bail stage. However, it observed that the circumstances raised a question about whether the alleged consent for the physical relationship was actually obtained under a misconception of fact.
Court Finds Doubt Requiring Investigation
Justice Sanjay Dhar also considered the petitioner’s cooperation with the inquiry. The Court noted that he had appeared before the Inquiry Officer and answered the questionnaire. It further observed that the police department had not claimed that he had stopped attending his duties.
"The possibility of abscondence of the petitioner is minimal."
The Court held that the allegation that the petitioner was absconding was not supported by the material placed before it. It also noted that, being a police employee, he remained subject to both investigative and disciplinary control.
Decision
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that Vikrant Kotwal be released on bail in the event of his arrest in the FIR.
The bail was made subject to a ₹50,000 bail bond and a personal bond of the same amount. He was directed to remain available to the Investigating Officer, cooperate with the investigation, avoid influencing or tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not leave the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vikrant Kotwal v. U.T. of J&K and Another
Case Number: Bail App No. 156/2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: September 11, 2026
