High Court refuses direct anticipatory bail plea citing petitioner's proclaimed offender status, lack of special circumstances, and established identity despite name discrepancies
In a significant ruling dated October 12, 2026, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Mr. Sanjay Dhar, J., dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Rajat Kumar, an accused in a rape case involving a minor prosecutrix. The case arises from FIR No. 110/2022 registered at Billawar Police Station, wherein the petitioner was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The prosecutrix alleged that on August 16, 2022, the petitioner forcibly raped her in a maize field while she was alone at her home. During investigation, the prosecutrix identified the offender variably as "Laddo," "Ashok alias Laddo," and "Rajat alias Laddo," but the investigation and witness statements established that Rajat Kumar alias Laddo, son of Jagdish Raj, was the offender. Notably, the prosecutrix was a minor at the time, as substantiated by her birth certificate.
Following the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner absconded and evaded arrest despite extensive searches across Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the Sessions Court declared him a proclaimed offender and initiated proceedings under Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, leading to issuance of general warrants for his arrest.
The petitioner moved the High Court directly for anticipatory bail, contending identity confusion and claiming residing outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir as grounds to bypass the Sessions Court. The High Court rejected this plea on multiple grounds:
1. Maintainability and Jurisdiction: Although the BNSS 2023 accords concurrent jurisdiction to both Sessions Courts and High Courts for anticipatory bail applications, the High Court emphasized the importance of exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court first. The Court held that mere residence outside the Union Territory does not constitute "special circumstances" warranting direct High Court intervention.
2. Absconder Status: The Court underscored that an accused declared an absconder/proclaimed offender and who continuously evades investigation is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, except in extreme exceptional cases. This principle aligns with Supreme Court precedents such as Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014), and recent rulings reaffirming that continuous defiance of the law disqualifies an accused from pre-arrest relief.
3. Identity and Evidence: Despite discrepancies in the name mentioned by the prosecutrix, the investigative material-including witness statements-unequivocally identified the petitioner as the accused. Therefore, no reasonable doubt or exceptional circumstance arose from the name variations to justify anticipatory bail.
4. Notice and Cooperation: The petitioner's claim of ignorance about the investigation was negated by evidence showing the Investigating Agency issued notices, and police officials actively searched for him. The Sessions Court was satisfied that the petitioner deliberately absconded.
Citing binding Supreme Court rulings and the recently enacted BNSS 2023 provisions, the High Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted to a person who flouts process of law. The Court thereby dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, reinforcing the principle that the judicial process must be respected and that courts should guard against misuse of anticipatory bail provisions.
This judgment reaffirms the procedural hierarchy for anticipatory bail applications and strengthens the legal stance against absconders seeking pre-arrest relief. It also clarifies that discrepancies in names or identity claims must be substantiated by compelling evidence to warrant bail, especially in grave offences involving minors under POCSO.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail - High Court should ordinarily not entertain a pre-arrest bail application directly without the accused first approaching the Sessions Court, unless special circumstances are shown - An accused declared absconder/proclaimed offender and against whom proceedings under Section 335 BNSS have been initiated is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail - Mere discrepancy in the name of the accused is not by itself an exceptional circumstance when identity stands established from investigation material.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 376 IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act 2012, Section 335 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Rajat Kumar v. U.T. of J&K, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000394
