2025:HHC:19857 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2025 Decided on : 25.06.2025 Pramod Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge Apprehending his arrest, in case, arising out of FIR No.86/2025 dated 03.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., applicant-Pramod Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19857 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case and he has termed the case, registered against him, as a story, concocted by respondent No.2. 4. It has been averred in the application that as per the allegations, incident had taken place, in the year 2019-20 and the FIR in question has been lodged in the year 2025. As such, according to the applicant, there is delay of about 5 years, in lodging of the FIR. 5. As per the applicant, the FIR in question has been lodged against him by respondent No.2 with an ulterior motive just to extract money from him. 6. The applicant has asserted that he is from respectable family, having deep roots in the society. 7. Apart from this, a stand has also been taken by the applicant that the story of the complainant is self- contradictory. 3 2025:HHC:19857 8. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police of PS Sundernagar/I.O., in this case. 9. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed. 10. As per the status report, which has been filed on 05.05.2025, on 03.05.2025, the victim, who is stated to be permanent resident of Nepal and presently residing at Salapadh Colony, along with her son and sister, appeared before the police and made a complaint, disclosing therein, that she is permanent resident of Kathmandu and in the year 2018, she had a conversation with applicant-Pramod Kumar. Thereafter, the applicant assured her to solemnize the marriage and subsequently, applicant-Pramod Kumar went to Kathmandu to take her back. 10.1. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter, Pramod Kumar (applicant) took her to Sundernagar and from there, he took her to Dharamshala, where, her entire family was residing. She stayed for about 3 months at 4 2025:HHC:19857 Dharamshala, where, the sister of the applicant, namely Saroj, disclosed her that the applicant is already married, whereas, according to the complainant, Pramod Kumar (applicant) apprised her that he is not married and he will solemnize marriage with her. 10.2. According to the further case of the complainant, on the pretext of marriage, applicant made physical relations with her. Consequently, she got pregnant and gave birth to a son. Despite repeated requests, when, applicant has not solemnized the marriage with her, then, the applicant and his mother threatened to kill her and they used to lock her inside the room. 10.3. It is the further case of the complainant that from the year 2018 to 2022, on the pretext of marriage, she was being raped by the applicant and thereafter, the complainant was thrown out of his home. 10.4. It is the further case of the complainant that Pramod Kumar (applicant) and his family members had repeatedly given the assurance to her on phone that they will solemnize her marriage with the applicant. 10.5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to take action against Pramod Kumar (applicant) and 5 2025:HHC:19857 his mother, upon which, police registered the case, under Sections 347, 342 and 506 of IPC. 10.6. It is the case of the police that initial investigation was entrusted to ASI Ashwani Kumar. Spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Photographs were clicked. The victim was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. Her statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded. Subsequently, she was produced, before the Court of learned ACJM, Sundernagar, where, her statement, under Section 183 of BNSS, was recorded. Thereafter, for DNA profiling, the blood samples of the son of the victim were obtained. 10.7. In the status report, a stand has been taken that the blood samples of the applicant are required for DNA profiling. 11. On the basis of above facts, vide order dated 05.05.2025, interim protection was given to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 14.05.2025. 12. On 14.05.2025, police filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.05.2025, the applicant had joined the investigation. Subsequently, the applicant was also medico legally examined and his blood 6 2025:HHC:19857 samples for DNA profiling were obtained. After joining the investigation on 06.05.2025, the applicant has not appeared before Police Station for further investigation. 12.1. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, the room at Dharamshala, where, the victim was allegedly raped by the applicant, was identified by the victim on 07.05.2025. The statement of the landlord, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded, who has also disclosed that the applicant, when, obtained the room on rent, had introduced the victim as his wife. 12.2. During investigation, it has been found, on the basis of the record, provided by the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Sundernagar, that the applicant had earlier solemnized marriage with one Neha Sen on 21.01.2015. His marriage was duly registered with Registrar, Municipal Corporation, Sundernagar. Thereafter, on 12.07.2024, the applicant had obtained the decree of divorce from said Neha Sen. All these facts have been pleaded to show that at the relevant time, marriage of applicant with Neha Sen was still subsisting and despite this fact, he had brought the victim from Kathmandu in 7 2025:HHC:19857 the year 2018 and they stayed thereafter as husband and wife. 13. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted at bar that DNA report has been received and as per the report, the applicant has been found to be the biological father of the son of the victim. 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present application. 15. Heard. 16. The relationship, between the applicant and the victim, cannot be said to be the consensual or romantic relationship, since, the applicant was already married, at the relevant time, as, according to the status report(s), filed by the police, the marriage of the applicant with Neha Sen was dissolved on 12.07.2024. Meaning thereby, in the year 2018, when, the applicant had gone to Kathmandu to take the victim with him, at that time, he was already married. 17. Besides this, the alleged promise, made by the applicant that he will marry the victim, was false, as, at that time, his marriage with Neha Sen was subsisting and he could not solemnize the marriage with victim. This fact 8 2025:HHC:19857 speaks voluminously about his evil design to sexually exploit the victim. 18. It is the stand of the complainant that she was kept by the applicant in the rented accommodation by introducing herself to be his wife to the landlord and thereafter, she was thrown out from there. 19. Considering the above facts in totality, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make a case, in his favour, for issuance of any direction, under Section 482 of BNSS. 20. Consequently, the present bail application is dismissed and the interim protection, which has been given to the applicant, vide order dated 05.05.2025, is withdrawn. 21. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as, these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 25, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur )