'Used social media and false promises to deceive woman': HC denies bail in Anantnag rape case

June 13, 2025 by News Desk

The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Srinagar has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping a woman by falsely promising marriage. The decision, delivered on May 30, comes under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual acts obtained through deceit.

The woman, who filed an FIR at Anantnag Police Station, claimed that Shakir-ul-Hassan began a relationship with her in 2021, promised to marry her, and even introduced her as his wife in public and private. She said they lived together in Anantnag and Delhi, and that she gave him Rs 10 lakh for education expenses.

“Every time he spoke of marriage, it felt real. He called me his wife. I believed him,” she told investigators, according to the complaint.

She also alleged that on March 13 and 14 this year, she was invited to what she thought was a family gathering but was instead sexually assaulted. When she resisted, she claimed, some of his family members threatened her.

Shakir and his brothers, who were also named in the FIR, told the court that the relationship was consensual and accused the woman of using the case as revenge. His lawyer argued: “She has a history of theft cases. This complaint is a counter-blow after our client filed a case of criminal intimidation.”

The court, however, found substance in the woman’s version. Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that “the relationship appears to have been built on sustained deceit, with the accused using social media and false promises of marriage to gain her trust.”

While the court quashed charges against Shakir’s brothers, it denied him bail, citing the early stage of the investigation and the importance of collecting digital evidence. “Premature bail in such cases can damage evidence and may stop other victims from speaking up,” the court noted in its order.

The judgment also emphasised the evolving role of digital footprints in cases of sexual exploitation. Justice Dhar said, “This is not a simple breach of promise. It shows signs of manipulation and intent to mislead.”

The case is being seen as an early test of the new criminal law and could shape how courts interpret consent in relationships formed online.