Srinagar, July 8, KDC: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that continuing the incarceration of an accused after the completion of an investigation amounts to pre-trial punishment, which remains completely impermissible under the law. Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order while granting bail to a police official, a resident of Hermain Shopian, accused of forcing a minor girl to take pregnancy termination medicine through her vagina after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by his son.
The policeman had approached the high court because the local sessions court in Shopian had previously rejected his bail plea. While ordering his release, the high court noted that the policeman had been in jail since January 2026. The court explained that since the investigation is over and the final charge sheet has been submitted to the trial court, keeping him in jail before he is proven guilty serves no legal purpose.
The case began in November 2025 when the father of the 17-year-old victim filed a complaint at the Shopian Police Station. According to the prosecution, the main accused, who is the policeman’s son, befriended the girl through a mutual friend, invited her to his house, and raped her. He allegedly threatened her and falsely promised to marry her. When the girl later felt sick, the boy’s family suspected she was pregnant and took her for an ultrasound, which confirmed she was 45 days pregnant.
The prosecution said that the family then plotted with a local doctor to end the pregnancy. In her official statement given to a magistrate, the victim said she was forced to take abortion medicines at a local hospital, which caused severe bleeding. When she refused to take any more medicine, the policeman allegedly used his position as a police officer to force the drugs into her vagina.
The victim was later taken to a hospital in Anantnag for a surgical clean-up procedure, where she said the boy, his sister, and the policeman beat her up. She also said that the boy snatched her phone to delete all call recordings and messages before sending her to Srinagar with strict warnings to stay quiet.
The government lawyer strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the policeman was part of a terrible crime involving the sexual assault of a minor girl and should not be let out.
On the other side, the lawyer defending the policeman argued that the rape charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were only against the son, not the father. The lawyer argued that the father’s alleged role was limited only to the abortion. The defense also claimed that the victim had blamed the entire family just to trap everyone, adding that it is highly unlikely for a father to help his son commit a rape.
The high court observed that the formal charges compiled against the father were confined to abetment and failure to report under the special minor protection law, rather than direct sexual assault, placing his case on a different footing than that of his son, who remains in custody.
Justice Dhar according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com, noted that a co-accused medical professional facing similar allegations regarding the forced termination process had already been released on regular bail by the trial court, while the female members of the family had been granted anticipatory bail by the high court. The court said that under these circumstances, denying the concession of bail to the petitioner would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law.
While allowing the petition, the high court ordered the release of the policeman on a personal bond of fifty thousand rupees with two sureties of the like amount. The court directed the petitioner to remain present on every date of the trial, stay within the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir unless granted prior permission by the trial court, and refrain from tampering with any prosecution evidence or intimidating the witnesses. (KDC)
