The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash proceedings alleging sexual exploitation on a false promise of marriage, including acts said to have begun while the complainant was a minor.
Judge / Bench — Justice Sanjay Parihar
Her Magistrate-recorded account, school records and other investigative material distinguished the case from a failed consensual adult relationship; disputed intention and consent could not be conclusively resolved through a mini-trial in inherent jurisdiction. Interim restraints were vacated and the investigating officer was allowed to proceed and file the charge sheet. Separately, anticipatory bail was made absolute because the applicant had cooperated and no misuse was shown. The decision illustrates that refusal to terminate prosecution and entitlement to continued bail require different assessments and can coexist.
Case — Suhail Ahmad Bhat v. UT of J&K, through Police Station Tarzoo Sopore · CRM(M) 202/2025 with Bail App. 116/2026 · 5 October 2026 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Mr. Hussain Rashid, Advocate. Respondent/UT — Mr. H. Aman Ali, Dy. AG. Investigating officer — Mr. Mohammad Ashraf, present in person.