2025:HHC:20304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1281 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.06.2025 Date of Decision: 28.06.2025. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju ...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. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State with ASI Dhanvir Singh, I.O Police Station Ram Shehar, P.O. Baddi, District Solan, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 64(1), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Ramshehar, Police District Baddi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20304 2. It has been asserted that, as per prosecution, the informant filed a complaint that the petitioner had forcibly entered her room on 22.01.2015 at about 1:30 a.m. and raped her. The police arrested the petitioner. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. He is a permanent resident of District Solan and has roots in the society. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint that the victim called him on 22.01.2025 at 7:45 a.m. and told him that the accused had raped her on the previous night at 1:30-2:00 a.m. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the F.I.R. The samples were collected and sent for analysis to SFSL, Junga. No semen was detected in any of the samples. The challan was presented before the Court on 19.03.2025. The matter is now listed for consideration of the charge on 25.08.2025. 4. I have heard Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Dhanwanti, learned counsel for the petitioner and 3 2025:HHC:20304 Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The medical evidence does not corroborate the victim’s version regarding the rape. Her statement is inherently improbable. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since January 2025. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The statement of the victim has to be accepted as correct, and her testimony cannot be doubted because of a lack of corroboration. 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. 4 2025:HHC:20304 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 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: - 5 2025:HHC:20304 “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 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 6 2025:HHC:20304 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 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. 7 2025:HHC:20304 12. The victim specifically stated that the petitioner entered her room and raped her during the night. It was submitted that this version of victim is inherently improbable because her husband was sleeping in the house, and her minor daughter was also sleeping on the same bed. She did not raise any hue and cry. The victim specifically stated that the petitioner had intimidated her, and she could not raise any hue and cry. This is a matter of trial. She narrated the incident to the informant on the next morning. The testimony of the victim is to be accepted as correct unless there is anything inherently improbable in it. In the present case, no reason was pointed out which would prompt the victim to falsely implicate the accused. Hence, her testimony cannot be doubted at this stage. 13. It was submitted that the victim's version is not corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence, no injuries were detected on the victim’s person, and no semen was found in the samples analysed. It is premature to say anything about this submission at this stage. Suffice it so say that the Court has to accept the vicitm’s testimony as correct unless rebutted by any material on record, and her testimony cannot be doubted because 8 2025:HHC:20304 of the absence of injuries on her person2. Thus, the prosecution's case cannot be doubted because the medical evidence or the report of SFSL does not corroborate the victim’s testimony. 14. The evidence is yet to be recorded, and releasing the petitioner, at this stage, would interfere with the fair trial; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. 15. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the stage of trial, therefore, it is impermissible to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the bail petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 16. 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) 2 State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, (2005) 8 SCC 122