The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force (IAF) in a rape case.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal on Thursday, while allowing continuation of probe in the rape case, directed that chargesheet shall not be filed without the Court’s permission.
The Wing Commander was booked on September 8 by the Budgam Police Station in Central Kashmir on a woman officer’s complaint that he had sexually assaulted her at the Srinagar Air Force Station.
The Srinagar Bench of the High Court observed that in case of arrest, the officer’s reputation and career would be jeopardised.
The accused was ordered to furnish two solvent sureties for an amount of Rs 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO) and personal bond of like amount.
The High Court told the officer not to leave the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of his Commanding Officer.
He was further directed not to contact any of the prosecution witnesses either physically or through any other mode.
He was ordered to appear before the IO with effect from September 14, 2024 to September 16, 2024 from 10 am till 2 pm and thereafter as & when required.
The High Court also directed the State to file a status report by or before the next date of hearing on October 11.
As per the First Information Report (FIR), the woman officer was forced to perform a sexual act on the accused after the New Year’s Party held at the officers’ mess on December 31, 2023.
She further alleged that the sexual assault took place in a room at around 2 am on January 1 after the Wing Commander asked her to come to a room to receive a New Year gift.
The woman also accused senior IAF officers of not taking her complaint seriously.
The Wing Commander filed two petitions before the High Court – one for quashing the FIR and another for anticipatory bail.
In the petition seeking quashing of the case, it was submitted that the complainant initially had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against him.
The petitioner contended that a Court of Inquiry was constituted after the sexual harassment complaint, but was subsequently cancelled and thereafter, a new Internal Committee (IC) was constituted by the Competent Authority.
The Committee returned the findings that the subject matter remained inconclusive and not proved against the petitioner vide findings dated June 15, 2024.
The petitioner alleged that the woman officer in a “calculated action”, more than three months after completion of the IC proceedings, filed the police complaint, raising same allegations as submitted earlier before the Court of Inquiry and IC.
He further alleged that the woman officer had gone to media to influence the investigation and proceedings before the competent authority.
The plea contended that the petitioner was a reputed officer of the Armed Force married to a fellow officer and has two minor children aged 14 and 6. This was affecting the life of young children and aged parents who were put to shame without going into the actual facts and merits of the case.
The High Court directed the Investigating Officer to consider the contention that the police cannot continue with the investigation once the IC has taken cognisance and concluded its proceedings.