2025:HHC:21211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1321 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Khem Raj ...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. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 26 of 2025, dated 10.04.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 87 and 115(2) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:21211 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Police Station Jhakhri, District Shimla, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. He is a resident of District Kullu. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The police have filed the copies of applications seeking the police and judicial remand filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., and learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Rape and POCSO, Rampur, District Shimla. 4. It has been asserted in these applications that the victim’s father made a complaint that the victim was forcibly married by the petitioner on 04.10.2024. He gave her beatings on 08.04.2025 and left her in her parental home. The police registered the F.I.R. The victim was sent for medical examination, but she refused to undergo medical examination. The petitioner was arrested, and he was medically examined. 3 2025:HHC:21211 According to the Medical Officer, the petitioner was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The police seized the articles lying inside the petitioner’s house. These were sent to SFSL, Junga, and the report of the analysis is still awaited. 5. I have heard Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, the respondent/State. 6. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the petitioner had married the victim and kept her as his wife in his home. These allegations do not constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(1) and 115(2) of BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. She was kidnapped out of her parents’ custody. Her consent is immaterial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 2025:HHC:21211 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. 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 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] .] 5 2025:HHC:21211 10. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:21211 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 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) 7 2025:HHC:21211 11. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 12. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. It was specifically stated in the F.I.R. as well as in the status reports filed before various courts that the petitioner had married the victim and kept her as his wife in his home for 6-7 months. There is no whisper in any of the applications that the victim was a minor. Her date of birth has not been mentioned in any of the reports. Thus, there is insufficient material to show that the victim was a minor and incapable of consent. 14. The victim refused to undergo her medical examination. Hence, there is no corroboration of the statement of the victim’s father that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. None of the status reports/ applications mentions that the victim had made any complaint about the sexual intercourse. Thus, the material on record, prima facie, does not show the commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(1) and 115(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 8 2025:HHC:21211 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a resident of district Kullu, H.P. This fact was not stated to be incorrect in any of the status reports. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the petitioner would abscond and would not face trial. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the present case, subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 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 concerned Police Station and the 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 9 2025:HHC:21211 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. 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Kaithu, District Jail, Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th July, 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=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e2258 78f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec9393752 91962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01 f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-07-04 14:14:13 KARAN SINGH GULERIA