Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused anticipatory bail to a Ramban man accused of assaulting two women during an alleged land trespass incident in which one of the women allegedly suffered a miscarriage after being hit on her abdomen. Justice M A Chowdhary, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of Mohd Abbas, resident of Village Ashmar, Famrote, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban, held that considering the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner was not entitled to protection from arrest. The order was pronounced on August 10.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 34/2026 after his plea was rejected by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. His counsel, Advocate Azmat Ullah Parihar, argued that Abbas had initially been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on June 27, 2026. However, after the subsequent addition of an offence under Section 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a fresh plea for anticipatory bail was rejected on July 29.
The defence contended that the medical record did not support commission of the offence punishable under Section 89 BNS at the time the FIR was initially registered and, therefore, the petitioner deserved protection from arrest.
Section 89 BNS deals with causing miscarriage of a pregnant woman without her consent and carries punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, besides fine.
According to the allegations recorded in the High Court order, Abbas, along with other co-accused, allegedly assaulted Manier Begum and Shahnaz Begum while trespassing upon their land during the intervening night of June 17 and 18, 2026.
The accused were also alleged to have attempted rape and outraged the modesty of the women. The prosecution allegation further stated that Shahnaz Begum suffered miscarriage after allegedly being hit with fists and blows on her abdomen during the incident.
Taking note of the accusations, Justice Chowdhary observed that "in view of the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations", the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The High Court also found no fault with the Sessions Court's refusal to extend pre-arrest protection and dismissed the petition in limine.
Advocate Azmat Ullah Parihar represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Eishaan Dadhichi appeared for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. JNF) |
