Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 6: The Fast Track Court Jammu has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of an ITBP constable accused in a serious case involving allegations of rape, criminal intimidation, extortion and preparation of obscene videos, observing that the accusations are grave and that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for a fair investigation.
The case pertains to FIR No. 26/2026 registered at Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu, for offences under Sections 123, 3(5), 351(3), 64(2)(m) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The bail application was filed by Pradeep Punia, a resident of Hisar, Haryana, who stated before the court that he is serving as a constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and is presently posted in Srinagar. His wife Monika was initially also an applicant, but her application was withdrawn earlier in view of a High Court order staying investigation against her.
According to the prosecution, the accused came in contact with the complainant through social media, projected himself as unmarried and induced her into a relationship on the promise of marriage. The investigation, as recorded in the order, indicates that he allegedly called the complainant to Jammu, administered an intoxicant to her at the ITBP Camp, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, committed sexual assault upon her and secretly recorded obscene videos. The court further noted the allegation that he later used the videos to threaten and intimidate her. The case had originated from a Zero FIR lodged at Rohtak and was later transferred to Jammu for investigation.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh, after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary, observed that the accusations were serious and required thorough investigation. The court noted that even according to the accused’s own case, he had come in contact with the complainant through social media and entered into a physical relationship with her, but the material gathered during investigation prima facie indicated concealment of his marital status and inducement of the complainant, a divorcee, into the relationship.
In particularly sharp observations, the court said that if the allegations are taken at face value, the act attributed to the accused was “outrageous” and “wantonly vile,” especially because he is alleged to have sexually assaulted the complainant within the premises of his official camp while serving in a border force. Holding that the gravity of the offences, their impact on society and the need for a free and fair investigation weighed against the accused, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
The court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not influence the merits of the case during trial.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
