2025:HHC:17993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP (M) No. :  1138 of 2025 Reserved on   :     03.06.2025 Decided on     :     06.06.2025 Rajinder Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma   &   Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocated General   with   Mr. Rohit   Sharma, Deputy   Advocate   General,   assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar, Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. Respondent   No.2,   joined   the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Rajinder Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17993 pendency of trial, in case arising out of FIR No.36 of 2024, dated   26.03.2024,   registered,   under   Section   376   of   the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated by the Police, in the present case. According to him, he has no concern with the crime, for which, he has been arrested by the Police. 3. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation,   in   the   present   case,   is   complete   and   the police   has   filed   the   charge­sheet,   which   is   pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. 5. Applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application   before   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge­I, Kangra   at   Dharamshala,   District   Kangra,   however,   his application   has   been   dismissed   vide   order   dated 20.06.2024. 6. Thereafter, the applicant has filed Cr.MP(M) No. 1420 of 2024, before this Court, which was dismissed on 11.09.2024. Thereafter,   the   applicant   has   again   filed 3 2025:HHC:17993 similar   application,   bearing   Cr.MP(M)   No.2338   of   2024, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. It is the further case of the applicant that his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the Police. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody. 8. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. N.S. Chandel,   learned   Senior   Advocate   assisted   by   Mr. Sidharth,   Advocate   has   given   certain   undertakings,   on behalf of the applicant, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein that on 26.03.2024, the prosecutrix/respondent   No.2,   along   with   her   friend appeared before the Police and made a complaint that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the application. 10.1. In December, 2022, she had enrolled herself for PHD   in   Chemistry,   in   CUHP   ‘X’.Dr. Rajender   Kumar 4 2025:HHC:17993 (applicant) was her supervisor. At that time, he was Head of Department in Chemistry Department. It is her further case that applicant used to talk to her in the normal way for the initial six months and when she requested her to provide the topic for research, then, the applicant had put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The said topic was not finalized by the applicant till the end of 2022, whereas,   according   to   her,   other   students   had   started working on the topic given by the applicant. 10.2. It is the further case of the complainant that in the   year   2022,   the   applicant   allegedly   stated   that   the prosecutrix is roaming with the boys, due to this fact, the prosecutrix suffered mental trauma. Thereafter, he has selected the topic for her, for which, he has also suggested the software. 10.3. As per the further version of the complainant, on the repeated demand, the said software was provided to her, but, the applicant has not guided her properly and tortured her mentally. Applicant has also threatened her to stop her fellowship on 25.03.2024. 5 2025:HHC:17993 10.4. According   to   the   complainant,   she   had approached the applicant in order to clear her doubt, upon which, he has told to change the topic and also assure that he   will   do   whatever,   she   wants. In   the   evening   time, applicant   called   her   to   University   Gate   to   discuss   the matter. Consequently, she had gone there. 10.5. Thereafter, the applicant asked the complainant to discuss the matter by sitting somewhere and he insisted her to go to Gopal Restaurant, where, the applicant had booked a room and disclosed the prosecutrix that they will discuss the topic there and will have their dinner there. In the room, the applicant allegedly raped her twice. 10.6. Applicant   took   the   prosecutrix   to   Gopal Restaurant   at   about   7.30   p.m.   and   they   came   back   at 10.00 p.m.   She has prayed that action be taken against the accused. 11. On  the  basis  of  the  above  facts,  the  FIR,  in question,   was   registered   and   the   criminal   machinery swung into motion. 12. Thereafter, the prosecutrix  was medico­legally examined, on 26.03.2024 and the physical evidence, so 6 2025:HHC:17993 collected by the doctor, and the final opinion was deferred till the receipt of RFSL report. Applicant was arrested on 27.03.2025. He was also medico­legally examined. 13. During   investigation,   the   statement   of   the prosecutrix was recorded, under Section 164 Cr.PC. The vehicle   used   in   the   alleged   crime   was   also   taken   into possession. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that although, three cases were found to be registered against the applicant, but, he has been acquitted in all the cases. 14. After receipt of FSL report, and on completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet, in the competent Court of law. Thereafter, the competent Court of law has taken cognizance and out of 36 witnesses, 12 witnesses have already been examined. 15. On the basis of the above facts, it has been argued by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that in view of the presumption, which is in favour of   the   prosecution,   under   Section   114­A   of   the   Indian Evidence Act, the applicant is not entitled for bail, as he has committed a heinous offence. 7 2025:HHC:17993 16. No   doubt   the   relationship   between   the prosecutrix and applicant was teacher and student, which is pious relationship, but, merely on the basis of the above relationship,   the   petitioner   cannot   be   kept   in   judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 17. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as  Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and Another, has held that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Relevant paragraphs 18 to 20, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:­ “18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human   potential   in   everyone   is   good   and   so, never   write   off   any   criminal   as   beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every   sinner   a   future. When   a   crime   is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making   the   offender   commit   the   crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence   contrasted   with   indigence   or   other privations. 19   If   the   State   or   any   prosecuting   agency including   the   court   concerned   has   no wherewithal   to   provide   or   protect   the fundamental   right   of   an   applicant   to   have   a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the 8 2025:HHC:17993 Constitution   then   the   State   or   any   other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over­arching postulate   of   criminal   jurisprudence   that   an applicant   is   presumed   to   be   innocent   until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” 18. So   far   as   the   arguments   of   the   learned Additional Advocate General, qua the presumption, under Section 114­A of the Indian Evidence Act, is concerned, to the considered opinion of this Court, as this stage, the prosecution   cannot   derive   the   benefit   from   the   said provisions, as the said provisions comes into play, once, the   prosecutrix   proves   the   fact   that   applicant   had committed the rape. In other words, the said presumption would be taken into consideration, at an appropriate stage, i.e., when the prosecution will prove the allegations of rape. 19. The applicant is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is released on bail, he may not be available for trial. 20. Moreover, keeping in view the pace of trial, the chances of conclusion of trial against the applicant are not 9 2025:HHC:17993 so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 21. In   this   case,   the   prosecutrix   has   joined   the proceedings through Video Conferencing and prayed that the bail may not be given to the applicant and in case, he is released on bail, he may coerce her. 22. So far as the said apprehension is concerned, to the considered opinion of this Court, for that reasonable condition   can   be   imposed,   in   case   he   is   ordered   to   be released on bail. 23. At   the   time   of   deciding   the   bail   application, detailed discussion of the evidence, so collected, by the prosecution or about the defence, which has been taken, by the applicant, should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to that of the accused. 24. The bail  application  cannot  be rejected, as  a matter   of   punishment,   as,   pre­trial   punishment   is prohibited   under   the   law   and   punishment   can   only   be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of 10 2025:HHC:17993 law. The   applicant   is   presumed   to   be   innocent,   until proven guilty. 25. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on   bail   in   case   FIR   No.36   of   2024,   dated   26.03.2024, registered,   under   Section   376   of   the   IPC   with   Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal   bonds,   in   the   sum   of   Rs.50,000/­,   with   two sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 26. This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :­ “a)   Applicant shall regularly 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; b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence   nor   hamper   the   investigation   of   the case in   any   manner whatsoever; c)     Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of   the case   so   as   to   dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.” 11 2025:HHC:17993 27. Any of the observations made herein above 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. 28. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 29. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai Open   Air   Correctional   Home,   Dharamshala,   District Kangra, through e­mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software. 30. In case, the   applicant is not released within a period of seven   days   from   the   date   of   grant of bail, the  Superintendent   of   Jail,   Lala   Lajpat   Rai   Open   Air Correctional   Home,   Dharamshala,   District   Kangra,  is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra at Dharamshala. The  Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai   Open   Air   Correctional   Home,   Dharamshala,   District Kangra,  is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this 12 2025:HHC:17993 Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 05, 2025(ps) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.06 16:19:59 IST