Raped, Silenced And Left With A Child: J&K High Court Denies Bail In Ramban Gang Rape Case
Justice Rajnesh Oswal of the High Court dismissed bail pleas of the accused noting the gravity of the offence outweighed the accused's claim to liberty.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : April 25, 2026 at 7:38 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused bail to two men accused in a gang rape case in Ramban district. The High Court held that the gravity of the offence, the birth of a child as a result of the alleged assault, and the risk of witness intimidation outweighed the accused's claim to liberty.
In a nine-page judgment, Justice Rajnesh Oswal at Jammu dismissed separate bail pleas filed by Shahid Ahmed, 25, and Muzamil Aziz, 28, who are facing trial under Sections 376-D, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 76/2024 registered at Police Station Gool.
The court was dealing with two connected applications arising from the same charge sheet titled "UT of J&K vs Muzamil Aziz and another," currently pending before a fast-track court in Ramban.
The case centres around the allegation that the prosecutrix was repeatedly sexually assaulted, resulting in the birth of a baby girl. The child was later surrendered to a Child Welfare Committee and is currently housed at a special adoption agency in Ramban.
While the defence argued that Shahid Ahmed was not named in the original FIR and that the prosecutrix had made contradictory statements during the trial. Meanwhile, the Counsel for Muzamil Aziz highlighted the delays in reporting the incident and also pointed at the inconsistencies in the victim's account, including her statement that she would not have approached police had she not become pregnant.
However, the prosecution, represented by the Union Territory, while opposing the bail stated that the victim had consistently implicated both accused in her statement before the magistrate and that the seriousness of the charges warranted continued custody.
The court noted that while the FIR initially named only one accused, the victim later told a magistrate that both men had assaulted her multiple times. Based on this statement, investigators added the gang rape charge.
A DNA report confirmed that Muzamil Aziz is the biological father of the child. The DNA of Shahid Ahmed did not match, but the court said this did not dilute the allegations against him at the bail stage.
Justice Oswal made it clear that courts cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence while deciding bail. "The petitioners, in fact, want this Court to appreciate evidence of the victim, which this Court cannot do while considering the bail application," the court said.
The court relied on precedents including Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan and X vs State of Rajasthan to reiterate that bail in serious offences must be granted cautiously, especially once trial has begun.
Significantly, the court stressed the human impact of the alleged crime. It said the accused had not only harmed the victim but also left a child in a vulnerable condition. "The accused, by their alleged actions, have not only violated the dignity of the prosecutrix but have also effectively orphaned a child," the court observed.
On the question of delay and contradictions, the court found no merit in the defence arguments at this stage. It said the victim had not turned hostile and had not exonerated the accused in her testimony.
The bench also addressed the right to speedy trial. It noted that about ten witnesses had already been examined within a year and two months, indicating that proceedings were moving at a reasonable pace.
Calling the allegations "grave and heinous," the court said they "strike at the very conscience of society." It added that in such cases, "the individual liberty of the accused must yield to the collective interest of the community."
The court while concluding its judgment said that there was a strong prima facie case, backed by medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the birth of the child. It also flagged the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses if released.
With these observations, both bail applications were dismissed by the court. "Court is of the considered view that petitioners cannot be granted bail at this stage, as such, both the bail applications are dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not returned any finding qua the evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the learned trial court and finding, if any, by this Court is solely for the purpose of deciding bail applications."
Read More:
