Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 25: 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu Anoop Kumar Sharma has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Ahmed Din, an advocate, in connection with FIR No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Janipur for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The case pertains to an alleged assault inside the court premises on April 28, 2026, when the complainant, Ahrar Baig, an intern at the J&K High Court, claimed that the accused followed him through the court corridor, abused him and allegedly delivered a violent headbutt near the District Judge’s Library, causing injuries.
As per the police report, the complainant received three stitches on his lip and was referred for dental consultation, while CCTV footage of the incident was also seized during investigation.
The applicant, through counsel A H Kazmi and Gaurav Arora, argued that he was innocent, had himself been assaulted by the complainant’s side, and had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that he is a senior citizen, physically handicapped since childhood, and was ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the court.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution and complainant’s counsel argued that the accused had assaulted a young intern within the court premises, creating fear among litigants and junior lawyers. It was further alleged that the accused and his family members were pressuring the complainant to withdraw the FIR, and that custodial interrogation was required, particularly as the allegation regarding snatching of the complainant’s chain was still under investigation.
After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, the court observed that the investigation had prima facie established the applicant’s involvement in the alleged occurrence. The court noted that although most offences mentioned in the FIR were bailable, the investigation regarding Section 307 BNS had not been dropped and the allegations of chain snatching were still being verified through CCTV footage and witness statements.
The court further held that there was a likelihood of hampering and influencing prosecution evidence, which is a relevant ground for refusing anticipatory bail. Observing that no case was made out for extending the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail, the court rejected the plea and dismissed the application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel