Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1293 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.6.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Nand Lal ...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. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 12 of 2025, dated 19.02.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(m) and 351 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was raped by co-accused-Onkar Singh. He promised the victim that he would get her marriage solemnised with Nand Lal- the present petitioner. The present petitioner also raped her. The p Police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner on 04.03.2025. The samples were taken and sent to FSL; however, no DNA of the petitioner was found in the victim’s samples. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of the crime. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Bilaspur, and there is no chance of his absconding. 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 made a complaint to the police stating that the victim was raped by Onkar Singh. He also threatened the victim to kill her in case the incident was revealed to any person. Subsequently, he promised to marry the victim to Nand Lal-the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) present petitioner. Nand Lal also raped the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police searched for Onkar Singh, but he could not be found. The police arrested the petitioner on 04.03.2025. The victim identified him. The victim and the petitioner were medically examined, and as per the report of the Medical Officer, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The samples were preserved and sent to FSL; however, no DNA was found in the samples of the victim. The police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 01.09.2025. 4. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. A general allegation has been made against the petitioner that he had raped the victim. No particulars of date, time and place were given. The victim is a major. The matter was 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) reported to the police after a considerable delay. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had committed a heinous crime. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded, and releasing the petitioner on bail will interfere with the fair trial; hence, 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) 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 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) 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 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) 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 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. A perusal of the status report shows that the victim was born on 09.03.2005, and she is a major. She specifically stated that Onkar Singh had raped and threatened her. She stated that the petitioner came to her room and told her that since Onkar Singh had sexual relations with the victim, therefore, he would also maintain the sexual relations with her. She did not state 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) specifically that relations were maintained against her will; therefore, prima facie, the material on record is not sufficient to detain the petitioner behind the bars. 13. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which shows that the investigation is complete and the custody of the petitioner is not required. The status report does not show that the detention of the petitioner is necessary. The State has only submitted that the nature of the crime is heinous and the petitioner should not be released on bail. Since it is not clear at this stage whether the relationship between the victim and the petitioner was consensual or forcible, hence the submission that the nature of the crime is heinous cannot be accepted. 14. The petitioner stated that he is a permanent resident of District Bilaspur. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. Thus, the petitioner has a permanent residence, and there is no chance of his absconding. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner will influence the witnesses, and his release will compromise the fair trial. This 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 16. Consequently, 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 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 on each and every hearing 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 concerned, 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. 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:21188 ) 17. 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. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent District Sub Jail, Kishanpura at Nalagarh District, Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th July, 2025 (Saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.04 12:20:54 NPT