( 2025:HHC:22386 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1491 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Prince ...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. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. SI Sanjay Kumar, IO PS Sadar, District Una, HP, with the police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail in F.I.R. No. 90 of 2025, dated 02.04.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short “BNS”), 2023 and Sections 4 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and the victim came in contact with each other. The petitioner proposed marriage to the victim. He entered into a sexual relationship with the victim based on the promise of marriage. The petitioner is not honouring his promise. The investigation is complete, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Una, and he has roots in the society. There is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner 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 victim came in contact with the petitioner through Instagram in the year 2020. The petitioner proposed marriage to the victim. The petitioner took the victim to his home, where his relatives told the victim that he would marry her and she could maintain the relationship with the petitioner. 3 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) The victim was a minor at the time of the incident. She was residing in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner refused to marry the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The medical examination of the petitioner and the victim was conducted, and samples were preserved. These samples were sent to the FSL, and as per the report of the FSL, the DNA profile obtained from the “Dupatta” of the victim did not match with the DNA profile of the petitioner. The investigation is complete, and a supplementary charge sheet will be filed before the Court. 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The version of the victim that she was raped by the petitioner is not corroborated by the report of the analysis, wherein it was mentioned that DNA recovered on the victim’s “Dupatta” was different from the petitioner’s DNA. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 02.04.2025. The 4 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He had raped the victim who was minor on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner would influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed and that the petitioner should not be released on bail. 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 5 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) 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:- “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 6 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) 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. 12. The status report shows that the samples of the petitioner and victim were sent to FSL and as per the report of analysis, the DNA found on the “Dupatta” of the victim does not 8 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) match with the petitioner’s DNA, therefore, the report prima- facie does not corroborate the victim’s version that the petitioner had raped her. 13. The statement made by the victim does not mention the date and time of the commission of the offence. A general statement has been made that the petitioner maintained a sexual relationship with her when she was a minor. The victim was born on 05.07.2006. As per her application, she attained majority in the year 2024; however, she filed the complaint in the year 2025. The delay in filing the complaint is another circumstance which has to be kept in mind while appreciating the prosecution’s case. 14. The police asserted in the status report that, the investigation is complete and only the supplementary charge- sheet is to be filed after the receipt of the call detail record and customer application form. This shows that the custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation. Keeping in view the circumstances on record, the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. 9 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) 15. 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 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. 16. 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. 10 ( 2025:HHC:22386 ) 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Una at Bangarh, District Una, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. 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 11th July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.11 15:59:15 NPT