2025:HHC:20101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1263 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.06.2025 Decided on : 27.06.2025 Taresh 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 : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person. Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Taresh Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.5 of 2025, dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 64, 351(3) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20101 to as the ‘BNS’), with Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and the police has also submitted the charge- sheet against him, in the competent Court of law. 3. It has been averred in the application that the allegations in the FIR are false, fabricated and lodged with mala fide intent and the relationship, between the applicant and respondent No.2, is stated to be consensual relationship. 4. The applicant is stated to be in custody since 13.01.2025 and the chances of conclusion of trial against the applicant are not so bright. 5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 11.04.2025. 3 2025:HHC:20101 5.1. Thereafter, the applicant had filed CrMP(M) No.1194 of 2025, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 22.05.2025. 6. Apart from this, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial, by allowing the bail application. 8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 13.01.2025, the victim appeared before the police and submitted the complaint, mentioning therein, that she is 22 years of age and residing at Chandigarh. 8.1. According to the victim, on 13.01.2025, she was on the way to Baddi and at about 07:45 pm, when, she reached at a place known as Motia Plaza, then, Bunty, S/o Babu Ram (applicant), came there in his car from Baddi bridge side. He has stopped the car near her. Said Bunty (applicant) was known to the victim, as, he was working in 4 2025:HHC:20101 Gagan Hospital. He had requested her to sit in the car. Consequently, due to her familiarity with the said person, she sat in the car. Bunty (applicant) drove the car towards Shanky Car Point, where, she was forced to alighten down from the car and took her in the office of Shanky Car Point, where, the victim was ravished by the accused (applicant). 8.2. It is the case of the victim that she has made unsuccessful attempt to save herself, but, could not succeed. The victim even bit his right hand, but, applicant did not leave her. Thereafter, Bunty (applicant) has also threatened to kill her, in case, she discloses this fact to anyone or also threatened to commit suicide. Thereafter, the applicant left her at Auto Stand, Baddi. Subsequently, complainant/victim had apprised the said fact to her sister and both of them had gone to Police Station. 8.3. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 64 and 351(3) of BNS. 8.4. On 13.01.2025, victim was medico legally examined at CHC, Nalagarh. The Medical Officer has issued the MLC and also handed over the physical evidence, so collected. 5 2025:HHC:20101 8.5. Subsequently, the complainant identified the spot. From the spot, physical evidence, so collected, was also taken into possession. 8.6. On 13.01.2025, applicant-Taresh Kumar was arrested and information, regarding his arrest, was given to his wife Preeti. Thereafter, he was also medico legally examined and the doctor, who had conducted the medico legal examination, collected the physical evidence, which was handed over to the police. 8.7. On 14.01.2025, accused/applicant was produced, before the Court and was remanded to police custody for three days. 8.8. On 15.01.2025, the car, used in the crime in question, was also taken into possession. 8.9. Thereafter, Section 238 of BNS has been added, in this case. 8.10. After completion of the investigation and after receiving the report from SFSL, Junga, police has filed the charge-sheet in the competent Court of law i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 05.03.2025. 9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 6 2025:HHC:20101 10. In this case, the victim has also been impleaded as respondent No.2, who has put appearance, before this Court and stated that whatsoever argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, representing respondent No.1/State, be treated as the arguments, on her behalf. 11. The investigation, in the present case, is complete, as, the police has submitted the charge-sheet in the competent Court of law, on 05.03.2025. This fact is sufficient to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the police. 12. The role, attributed to the applicant, in the crime in question, would be proved during the trial and at this stage, the applicant is presumed to be innocent, as, except the present case, no other case is stated to have been registered against him. 13. The bail application cannot be rejected merely as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and the punishment can only be inflicted, after the conclusion of trial. 14. Moreover, the chances of commencement and conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be 7 2025:HHC:20101 served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period. 15. So far as the stand of the applicant, qua the fact that the victim was the consented party, is concerned, that fact would be proved or probabilized, by the applicant, during the trial. 16. Even otherwise, considering the facts in totality, according to which, the applicant is the permanent resident of Kalka, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for the trial. 17. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for his release on bail. 18. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.5 of 2025, dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 64, 351(3) and 238 of the BNS, with Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of ₹50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 8 2025:HHC:20101 19. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: a) The 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 the appropriate application; b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) The 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) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 20. 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. 21. It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 22. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail, Kishanpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal 9 2025:HHC:20101 Pradesh, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 23. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail, Kishanpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail, Kishanpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 27, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.27 12:15:47 IST