HC denies anticipatory bail to man accused of assault causing pregnant woman's miscarriage

12/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused anticipatory bail to a Ramban man accused of assaulting two women during an alleged land trespass incident in which one of them allegedly suffered a miscarriage after being hit on the abdomen.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Mohd Abbas, a resident of Ashmar, Famrote, Tehsil Gool, Ramban, holding that in view of the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the allegations, he was not entitled to protection from arrest. The order was pronounced on August 10.
Abbas had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 34/2026 after his plea was rejected by the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
Advocate Azmat Ullah Parihar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Abbas had initially been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on June 27, 2026. However, following the subsequent addition of an offence under Section 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), his fresh plea for pre-arrest protection was rejected on July 29.
The defence argued that the medical record did not support the commission of the offence under Section 89 BNS when the FIR was initially registered and, therefore, the petitioner deserved protection from arrest.
Section 89 of the BNS deals with causing miscarriage of a pregnant woman without her consent and provides for imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, besides fine.
According to the allegations recorded in the High Court order, Abbas, along with other co-accused, allegedly trespassed upon the land of Manier Begum and Shahnaz Begum during the intervening night of June 17 and 18, 2026, and assaulted the two women.
The accused were also alleged to have attempted rape and outraged the modesty of the women.
The prosecution further alleged that Shahnaz Begum suffered a miscarriage after she was allegedly hit with fists and blows on her abdomen during the incident.
Considering the allegations and the nature of the offence, Justice Chowdhary observed that "in view of the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations", the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Court and dismissed the petition in limine.
Advocate Azmat Ullah Parihar appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Eishaan Dadhichi represented the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty