Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 915 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.6.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Mossin ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 33 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 77 and 238 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim developed a friendship with the petitioner about three 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) years ago. The petitioner raped her in his premises. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner had married the victim, and a false case was made against him due to a matrimonial dispute. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report stating that the victim developed a friendship with the petitioner about 3 years ago. The petitioner visited Dehradun to meet her. He called her to a Hotel at bus stand Karnal in January, 2023 where he raped her. The victim threatened to file a complaint against the petitioner, but he promised to marry her. The petitioner went to Baddi as an apprentice. He told the victim that he did not know how to cook and she should reside with him. The victim went to Baddi, where the petitioner maintained physical relations with her. He also took some obscene photographs and videos. He threatened to make those photographs and videos viral. The victim became pregnant, and some medicine was administered to 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) her. She made a complaint to the police. The police called the petitioner, who accepted his fault and promised to marry her. The petitioner married the victim in July 2024 as per Muslim Customs. Her mother provided dowry to her at the time of the marriage; however, the petitioner and his family members started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. The victim expressed her inability to bring the dowry, after which, she was beaten and threatened. The accused went to the victim’s matrimonial home, where Imran and Noor Mohammad attempted to rape her. When the victim resisted, she was beaten. The matter was reported to the police, and she was medically examined. The police conducted the investigation and got the victim medically examined. As per the report of the Medical Officer, no injuries were found on the person of the victim; however, the possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. The victim identified a room at Baddi, where she had resided with the petitioner and where she was raped. The record of the treatment of the victim was obtained, which showed that the victim had visited the hospital with the complaint of heavy bleeding. The victim was referred for further treatment. The sonography report, shown to the doctor, 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) mentioned a 6-week missed abortion. The Hotel at the bus stand in Karnal was also identified by the victim. The record of marriage was sought from the Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Kunjpura, who reported that no entry of the petitioner’s marriage was made in the record. The police arrested the petitioner. The samples were sent to the FSL, and no blood or semen was detected on the material objects. DNA profile was not undertaken. The Challan was filed before the Court; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The allegations in the FIR do not constitute the commission of the rape. The victim and the petitioner had a matrimonial dispute, and a false FIR was lodged by the victim to compel him to meet her demands; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses, in case of his release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. A perusal of the FIR shows that the victim was called to Karnal, where she was raped in a hotel. When she threatened to lodge an FIR regarding the incident, the petitioner promised to marry her. The petitioner maintained a physical relationship with the victim based on this promise. She made a complaint to the police, which was withdrawn by her after the petitioner promised to marry her. 13. Thus, as per the victim, the relationship between the parties was based upon the promise to marry the victim. 14. The victim has specifically stated that the petitioner married her as per Muslim Rites in July 2024 at Haridwar. Thus, it cannot be said that the consent of the victim for the physical 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) relationship was based upon a false promise to marry. The promise to marry was genuine, which is evident from the fact that the petitioner had married the victim. 15. It was submitted that the marriage was not entered in the Gram Panchayat; however, that will not make any difference because the victim never stated that the petitioner had not fulfilled the promise made by him. Rather, she is quite specific in saying that she had married the petitioner as per Muslim customs in July 2024; hence, the prosecution's case that the consent of the victim was vitiated because of a false promise to marry is not prima facie acceptable. The status report shows that the victim was a major at the time of the incident, and she was capable of consenting. 16. It was also stated that the victim became pregnant and the petitioner administered some medicines to her, which led to her abortion. However, the status report shows that the ultrasound had a six-week missed abortion report, but the Medical Officer could not say the reason for the abortion. Thus, prima facie, it has not been established that the victim had aborted the fetus due to some medicines administered by the petitioner. 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) 17. The other complaints were made against the other accused and not the petitioner. 18. The status report shows that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. This means that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the interrogation/investigation. No reason has been assigned in the status report for the detention of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that he is a permanent resident of District Solan, and it was not suggested to be incorrect in the status report. Thus, the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 19. It was submitted that the petitioner will intimidate the witnesses, and this will compromise the fair trial. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 20. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 21. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 22. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nalagarh District, Solan H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21189 ) 23. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 24. 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. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th July, 2025 (Saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.04 12:21:19 NPT