IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.749/2025. Date of Decision: 05th September, 2025. Prince .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Addl. Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.12/2024 dated 20.04.2024, registered at Women Police Station Una, District, Una H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO and Section 67B of Information Technology Act. 2. Learned Addl. Advocate General has placed on record a copy of notice issued by the concerned Women Police Station, Una, District Una, HP, informing the complainant about the present pending bail petition filed in the case registered at her behest. By virtue of the same, today’s date in the pending lis was brought to the notice of the complainant. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. 3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the status report. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. FIR, in the case at hand, was registered on 20.04.2024. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 18.06.2024 and supplementary challans were filed on 28.11.2024 and 10.12.2024. There are total 31 witnesses and out of which 8 witnesses were examined. Now the case has been listed for examination of witnesses on 16/17.10.2025. On the said date, 14 witnesses have been called for the purpose of examination. Trial would not be concluding in the near future. 4. The allegation against the present bail petitioner is that he raped a minor girl multiple times over a period of three years. The same is alleged to have been done under the garb of threats by showing weapons and violent videos to the victim. It is further alleged that the bail petitioner had taken obscene photographs/videos while perpetrating wrongs on the victim and the same had been shared on social media i.e., Instagram. In this respect, it is alleged that threats have been meted out to the complainant. 5. In the medical got conducted insofar as the victim is concerned, nothing incriminating was found. Similarly, in RFSL report also nothing incriminating has been found insofar as the present bail petitioner is concerned. On extractions made from the mobile phone of the present bail petitioner, nothing incriminating has been retrieved. The bail petitioner, in the case at hand, had voluntarily surrendered on 18.05.2024 and is presently in judicial custody. 3 6. Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just” procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the Accused. 7. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 184 : 2018 SCC onLine SC 478; Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453. 8. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 9. While deciding an application for bail, Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. 4 10. From the status report, so filed, it is evident that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. There is no possibility of flight risk in the case at hand. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 11. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village and PO Sipprian, Tehisl Mukerian and District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. In order to ensure his presence at trial stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail. 12. Punishment begins after conviction. A person in detention is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. 13. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner, whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the confidence that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court. 5 14. The respondent/State has not expressed any apprehension regarding him fleeing from the justice and adversely affecting the trial. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial. 15. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 16. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.12/2024 dated 20.04.2024, registered at Women Police Station Una, District, Una H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO and Section 67B of Information Technology Act., shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lac] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this bail order is subject to the following conditions:-. (i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; 6 (iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; & (vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. 17. Needless to say that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioner. 18. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 19. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 20. In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Una. The Superintendent, District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the 7 order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court. 21. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 22. A copy of this order be sent to the District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P and the learned trial Court by FASTER. 23. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and, in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 05th September, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat) Digitally signed by GAURAV SINGH DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=b615aae6b839bd7695619d205a0649faa3f10ee7 8fd5fc7d356ef93266e0ead9, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=97f5851e94d1ce4a9d9b2419311e660 ac9051e6298a507d8e42c11fe77a95002, CN=GAURAV SINGH Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-09-05 17:24:06 GAURAV SINGH