Jammu and Kashmir HC grants anticipatory bail to police SI accused of sexually exploiting constable

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a police sub-inspector(SI) who was accused of sexually exploiting a woman constable by repeatedly making false promises to marry her in order to continue a sexual relationship [Vikrant Kotwal v. UT of J&K].

Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that the woman constable, even by her own account, had continued the relationship even after she came to know that the accused SI was already married to another woman and had two children from the wedlock.

In these circumstances, the Court expressed a prima facie view that there seemed to be some force in the accused SI's argument that the relationship was consensual.

"Although initially she (woman constable) may not have been aware of the marital status of the petitioner, her subsequent conduct of continuing the relationship with him despite knowing his marital  status gives rise to an inference that her relationship with the petitioner (accused SI) was not based upon a misconception of fact … the material on record does suggest that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were deeply in love with each other,  which resulted in sexual intercourse between the two," the Court said.

The Court further noted that it was unlikely that the accused SI would abscond during the investigation of the case if he was given bail.

"The petitioner, being an employee of the police department, is not only under the investigative control of the said department but he is also subject to its disciplinary control. It is always open to the police department to take coercive measures against the petitioner so as to secure his attendance for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the possibility of abscondence of the petitioner is minimal," it reasoned.

The anticipatory bail plea was filed by police SI Vikrant Kotwal.

Kotwal was booked in a criminal case alleging the commission of offences under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means), 83 (marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife), 88 (causing miscarriage) and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case was filed on a complaint by a woman constable, who claimed that she entered into a relationship with Kotwal on the basis of repeated assurances that he would marry her.

She said that they also lived like husband and wife for around a year, during which time she became pregnant twice. However, on both occasions, Kotwal persuaded her to abort the pregnancy.

She eventually discovered that Kotwal was already married to another woman. She alleged that Kotwal assured her that he would divorce his wife and marry her.

She said that he continued meeting her and maintaining the relationship, despite job transfers and that they eventually underwent a marriage ceremony in the presence of a pandit (Hindu priest) in May 2025.

The complainant said that she then became pregant a third time. However, Kotwal allegedly ended the relationship abruptly and blocked her from communicating with him after being informed of the third pregnancy.

An FIR was eventually registered on these allegations, following which Kotwal sought anticipatory bail. He approached the High Court for relief after a sessions court rejected his plea.

On September 11, the High Court granted him anticipatory bail after arriving at a prima facie finding that the relationship between Kotwal and the complainant appeared to be consensual.

”Once there is a prolonged association or physical relationship, it would be inconceivable that the same would not be consensual in nature, unless there are circumstances which indicate to the contrary," the Court observed.

The Court also expressed doubts about whether the complainant was truly deceived about Kotwal's promises of marriage, since she continued the relationship even after becoming aware that his first marriage was subsisting.

"It is not a case where the petitioner, after concealing his marital status, induced the prosecutrix into a wedlock; rather, it is a case where both of them were aware that the petitioner was a married person and that his second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage was not valid," it said.

Senior Advocate K Nirmal Kotwal, assisted by advocate RS Isher, appeared for the petitioner. 

Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti and advocate Vasudha Sharma appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]