2025:HHC:20300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1212 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.06.2025 Date of Decision: 28.06.2025. Gaurav ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Vinod Chauhan and Nandita, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 12 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2) & 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) at Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20300 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner has not committed any sexual act with the victim. He belongs to a humble family, and he has no criminal history. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. He 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 asserting that the victim did not return to her home on 24.03.2025. Her parents tried to contact her. She returned on 25.03.2025 with two juveniles, who revealed on inquiry that the victim had accompanied Manish Kumar. She had maintained physical relations with him. The victim was born on 08.01.2010 and did know her, good or bad. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the F.I.R. The police arrested accused Manish Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar . The victim identified the room where accused Pradeep Kumar had raped her. The police seized the bed sheet and prepared the site plan. The police also seized the victim’s clothes. It was found that the accused had taken the victim to the petitioner’s house and raped her. The record of the date of birth of the victim was obtained, and her date 3 2025:HHC:20300 of birth was found to be 08.01.2010. She was aged 14 years, 11 months and 17 days on the date of the incident. The victim had stayed in the house of the petitioner along with accused Manish Kumar @ Pardeep Kumar and the juveniles. As per the report of the analysis, the bed sheet, condom lifted from the spot, vaginal swabs and lower of the victim contained the DNA of the victim and accused Pardeep @ Munish. As per the final report, there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. Petitioner had assisted accused Pradeep @ Manish in raping the victim by providing shelter to him and the victim. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s Vinod Chauhan and Nandita learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. He did not assault the victim, and his DNA was not found on the clothes and sample preserved by the Medical Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitoin be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2025:HHC:20300 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim was aged 14 years years, 11 months and 17 days at the time of the incident. The petitioner provided shelter to the victim and the accused Pardeep @ Munish, and thereby facilitated the commission of the crime by him. The offence is heinous; 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 as under 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 5 2025:HHC:20300 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., (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 6 2025:HHC:20300 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. 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 7 2025:HHC:20300 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 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. Perusal of the status report shows that the accused Pardeep @ Manish and the victim stayed in the petitioner’s house. The victim asserted that the accused, Pardeep @ Manish, raped her in the room of the petitioner’s house. This is corroborated by the presence of DNA of the victim and the petitioner ; in the bed- sheet recovered from the house of the accused; therefore, the petitioner had abetted the commission of the offence by the co- accused, Pardeep @ Manish and plea taken by him that he is innocent and was falsely implicated is not acceptable. 8 2025:HHC:20300 13. The status report further shows that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and the matter is now listed for consideration of the charge on 28.07.2025. The statement of the victim has not been recorded so far, and releasing the petitioner on bail will interfere with the fair trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on this consideration as well. 14. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the age of the victim, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 15. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th June, 2025 (ravinder)