Court rejects anticipatory bail plea of advocate in alleged assault on HC intern inside court complex

26/05/2026

Jammu, May 25: A court in Jammu has rejected the anticipatory bail application of an advocate accused in an alleged assault case involving a High Court intern within court premises, observing that there was a possibility of influencing witnesses and hampering investigation.
The order was passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma while dismissing the pre-arrest bail plea of Ahmed Din in connection with FIR No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Janipur under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The case pertains to an incident allegedly occurring on April 28, 2026 inside the court complex, where complainant Ahrar Baig, an intern at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, accused the advocate of following him through a corridor, abusing him and assaulting him near the District Judge's Library.
According to the prosecution, the complainant sustained injuries in the incident and was administered three stitches on his lip before being referred for dental consultation. Investigators also seized CCTV footage from the court premises as part of the probe.
The accused, through counsel A.H. Kazmi and Gaurav Arora, sought anticipatory bail contending that he had been falsely implicated and was himself subjected to assault by persons accompanying the complainant. The defence further argued that the applicant was a senior citizen, physically handicapped since childhood and willing to cooperate with the investigation while complying with any conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution, along with counsel for the complainant, opposed the plea, alleging that the accused had assaulted a young legal intern within the court premises, thereby creating fear among litigants and junior members of the legal fraternity. It was also alleged before the court that attempts were being made by the accused and his family members to pressure the complainant into withdrawing the FIR.
Opposing grant of relief, the prosecution argued that custodial interrogation remained necessary, particularly regarding allegations relating to snatching of the complainant's chain, which were still under investigation.
After examining the case diary and hearing both sides, the court observed that material collected during investigation prima facie pointed towards involvement of the applicant in the occurrence.
The court noted that although several offences mentioned in the FIR were bailable in nature, investigation with regard to the allegation under Section 307 BNS had not been dropped.
It further observed that allegations concerning chain snatching were still being verified through CCTV footage and witness statements.
Holding that there existed a likelihood of interference with prosecution evidence and influence over witnesses, the court said such considerations weighed against grant of anticipatory bail.
Observing that no case was made out for extending the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail, the court dismissed the application.
The order means the investigating agency can proceed with the probe without the protection of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty