JAMMU — The Fast Track Court Jammu has granted interim bail to a man accused of allegedly assaulting his mother, tearing her clothes, threatening her and attempting to rape her, citing completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and other changed circumstances.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh, while considering the bail application, observed that the accused had remained in custody for more than three months and that the investigation had been completed, making it appropriate to reconsider his plea for bail.
The case arises from an FIR registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, under Sections 64, 75, 79, 332(c), 74, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the alleged incident took place on July 28, 2026, when the accused, identified as Satnam Singh, entered his mother’s residence at Digiana Camp, Jammu, and allegedly assaulted her with fists and blows. He was also accused of using a broken wooden door during the assault.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused tore his mother’s clothes, unzipped his trousers, threatened to urinate on her face and attempted to commit rape. Investigators also reportedly obtained a short video purportedly capturing the incident.
The Court noted that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet presented before the competent court. The case had also reached the stage of consideration of arguments on charge.
The complainant, who is the accused’s sister, and the alleged victim, his mother, appeared before the Court and stated that they had no objection to his release on bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
However, the Court clarified that the consent or opposition of a victim or complainant cannot, by itself, determine the outcome of a bail application, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.
The Bench observed that circumstances had substantially changed since the dismissal of the accused’s earlier bail application on August 31, 2026.
It further noted that, with the investigation complete and the charge-sheet filed, the need for continued custody for investigation, collection of evidence or custodial interrogation no longer appeared to exist.
The Court also took note of the alleged family and property-related dispute between the accused, his mother and siblings. His custody exceeding three months and the fact that he has two minor children, including a daughter aged approximately 14 years, were also considered.
Another relevant circumstance was that the accused and the alleged victim were residing separately, enabling the Court to impose safeguards against unwanted contact, intimidation or interference.
The Court also observed that whether the alleged act of unzipping trousers and exposing private parts, by itself, constituted an offence of attempt to rape was a matter requiring consideration at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
Taking into account the overall circumstances, the Court observed that none of the offences involved was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and concluded that the accused had made out a case for interim bail.
The Court directed Satnam Singh to furnish bail and surety bonds of ₹50,000 each and granted him interim bail until the next date of hearing.
The relief was made subject to several conditions. The accused was directed not to visit the premises of the victim or complainant with the intention of intimidating them or engaging in unwanted interaction. He was also restrained from directly or indirectly threatening, influencing or pressuring them.
The Court further directed him to appear regularly before the trial court, refrain from endangering the safety, dignity or security of the victim and complainant, and not tamper with prosecution evidence or attempt to influence any witness.
The Court specifically warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the recall of the interim bail order.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on November 20, 2026.
Advocates Navyug Sethi and Mohd. Rahiees represented the accused, while Ajay Dogra, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), appeared on behalf of the State. Advocate Manpreet Singh Saini represented the complainant.
The grant of interim bail does not amount to a determination of the accused’s guilt or innocence, and the allegations remain subject to adjudication by the trial court.
Follow Us
The Kashmir Pulse is now on Google News. Subscribe our Telegram channel and Follow our WhatsApp channel for timely news updates!
