2025:HHC:19448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1250 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.06.2025 Date of Decision:24.06.2025 Vipin ...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. Dewa Nand, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : 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. 19 of 2025, dated 27.02.2025, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19448 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely arrayed as an accused. He was arrested on 27.02.2025 and since the he is in judicial custody at Modern Central Jail, Kanda. The petitioner has not committed any offence, and there is no material to connect him with the commission of a crime. There is a land dispute between the petitioner and the victim’s family, and the victim’s family had previously threatened the petitioner to implicate him falsely. As per F.I.R., the incident had occurred on 10.02.2025; however, the schools were closed because of the winter vacation from 1st January to 11th February 2025. There was a school holiday on the occasion of Guru Ravidas Jayanti on 12.02.2025. The medical and forensic evidence does not connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The petitioner is the sole earning member of the family. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, stating that the victim told the informant that the accused/petitioner maintained physical relations with her on 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025 when she was going to school. Since, 3 2025:HHC:19448 petitioner threatened the victim not to reveal the incident to anyone hence she did not reveal this incident to anyone due to fear. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner. The victim pointed out one used piece of Bidi inside the toilet, which was seized by the police. The victim subsequently clarified that she could not mention the dates correctly, and the accused had maintained physical relations with her after the reopening of the school. He again maintained physical relations with her after 2-3 days. The teachers revealed on inquiry that the school was reopened on 13.02.2025. The victim also revealed that the accused used to tell her that she could buy anything from the shop. The owner of the shop confirmed this fact. The call detail record was obtained, and it was found that the location of the petitioner was in the area mentioned by the victim. DNA on the used piece of Biri matched the DNA of the petitioner. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court on 25.04.2024. The matter is listed before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on 30.06.2025 for consideration of the charge. 4 2025:HHC:19448 4. I have heard Mr. Dewa Nand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Dewa Nand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is a land dispute between the petitioner and the victim’s family, and the victim's family threatened the petitioner to implicate him falsely. The schools were closed on the date of the incident, and the incident could not have occurred on those dates. The matter was reported to the police after much delay, and there is no explanation for the delay. The MLC and report of analysis do not connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. The victim could not mention the dates of the incident correctly, and this is not sufficient to cast a doubt on her version. Enmity is a double-edged weapon- while it furnishes the motive for false implication, it also furnishes the motive for 5 2025:HHC:19448 the commission of crime. The statement of the victim is to be accepted as correct at this stage. 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., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis 6 2025:HHC:19448 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 7 2025:HHC:19448 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 apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the 8 2025:HHC:19448 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. As per F.I.R., the incident had occurred on 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025. The matter was reported to the police on 27.02.2025. Thus, there is a delay of about two weeks in reporting the matter to the police. The victim claimed that the accused had threatened her, and she could not report the matter earlier due to fear. This is not a satisfactory explanation because it does not explain how the fear was removed after two weeks to enable the victim to report the matter. 13. It was mentioned in the status report that the police conducted the inquiry with the teacher. The teacher revealed that the school was reopened on 13.02.2025. Therefore, the 9 2025:HHC:19448 victim could not have been raped while going to school on 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025. The victim stated in her statement recorded by the police that her school was closed due to the winter vacation and the accused raped her after re-opening the school, and 2-3 days after the first incident. She could not narrate this fact earlier. This explanation is, prima facie, not acceptable. The victim could very well have stated that she was raped immediately after the reopening of the school, but she chose to mention the dates 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025. When it was found that the school was closed, she changed her version to explain the closure of the school. This change in the dates of the incident, prima facie, shows that the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the victim cannot be accepted at thier face value. 14. The MLC does not show any injuries. No DNA was found in the clothes of the victim. The DNA was found on a piece of used Biri, but that is hardly sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime because the petitioner is a resident of the same village, and the discovery of a Biri stub containing his DNA does not establish the prosecution’s case regarding rape. 10 2025:HHC:19448 15. It was submitted that the victim’s version, that the accused had told the shopkeeper to provide food articles to her and he would pay for those articles, is corroborated by the statement of the shopkeeper. The accused claimed that he had enmity with the victim’s family, and this conduct of the accused falsifies his version. Asking the shopkeeper to provide food item to the victim will not establish the case of rape especially when the victim did not state that the accused had friendly relations with her and he used these friendly relations to commit rape. Her simple version is that she was raped while going to the school, which cannot be corroborated by the statement of shopkeeper regarding delivery of food articles. 16. The police have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet; hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody. The charges have not yet been framed, which shows that there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. 17. In view of the above, 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 11 2025:HHC:19448 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on 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 in case a charge sheet is presented against him 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, 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. 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Modern Central Jail, Kanda, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 12 2025:HHC:19448 20. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24 June, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f 23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291 962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-06-24 13:43:30 KARAN SINGH GULERIA