( 2025:HHC:25611 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1576 of 2025 Reserved on: 23.07.2025 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 Pawan Sharma ...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. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, with ASI Bhagat Singh, I/O PS Solan, District Solan, present with the police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 27 of 2024, dated 01.06.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “POCSO Act”) and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2( 2025:HHC:25611 ) Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC & ST Act”) at Women Police Station, District Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2024. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on 18.10.2024. The matter is now listed on 11.08.2025. The prosecution has filed an incomplete charge sheet. The identification form containing the details of the collection of the DNA sample and the detailed DNA profile report were missing. The petitioner filed an application under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “BNSS”) for the supply of the complete record. The learned Trial Court passed an order on 13.03.2025 and directed the prosecution to supply the documents. The documents have not been supplied. The trial did not commence due to the prosecution’s fault. Prosecution has cited 16 witnesses, but not a single witness has been examined. The petitioner is a college student, and his career prospects would be harmed by his continued detention. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3( 2025:HHC:25611 ) 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim’s mother made a complaint to the police that the victim complained of a pain in her stomach. She was taken to the hospital, and it was found that the victim was pregnant. She revealed on inquiry that the petitioner had raped her on 14.11.2023. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner on 04.06.2024. The petitioner and the victim were medically examined. It was found that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Castes and her date of birth is 02.10.2007. She delivered a child on 16.07.2024. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. As per the report of analysis, the victim is the biological mother, and the petitioner is the biological father of the newly born child. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution is not supplying the complete 4( 2025:HHC:25611 ) documents to the petitioner, and the trial is not progressing due to the lapses of the prosecution. The petitioner is a college-going student, and his career is being harmed by his continued detention. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had raped a minor girl belonging to the SC community. She delivered a child, and the petitioner was found to be the biological father of the child. The police have filed a supplementary charge-sheet on 01.08.2025, and the documents would be supplied on 11.08.2025, the date fixed. There is no delay in the progress of the 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 5( 2025:HHC:25611 ) 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: - “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 6( 2025:HHC:25611 ) 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 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:25611 ) 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. As per the status report, the victim specifically asserted that the petitioner had raped her. Her statement is duly corroborated by the report of analysis, in which the petitioner was found to be the biological father and the victim was found to be the 8( 2025:HHC:25611 ) biological mother of the child. The status report also shows that the victim was born on 02.10.2007. She was a Member of the SC community, and she stated that the petitioner had raped her because she belongs to the SC community; therefore, the status report, prima facie, shows the commission of an offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC&ST Act. 13. It was submitted that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application seeking direction to furnish all relevant documents in support of the collection of a DNA sample and a detailed profile report of the child. This application was disposed of by the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2025, and a direction was issued to supply the documents relied upon by the prosecution regarding the DNA profile. The order sheets of subsequent dates have not been filed, and the order sheet dated 16.06.2025 reads that the documents be supplied within 07 days and the matter be put up for consideration of the application on 11.08.2025. The status report shows that a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed on 01.08.2025. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner that the documents have not been supplied to him, which led to the delay 9( 2025:HHC:25611 ) in the trial, is not justified. The petitioner sought the detailed DNA profile report, which is not ordinarily part of the charge sheet, and it would take some time to collect it and supply it to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot assert that the prosecution had not supplied the complete record to him, and he is entitled to bail on this consideration. 14. The statement of the victim has not been recorded. Releasing the petitioner on bail will compromise the fair trial as the chances of intimidation of the victim cannot be ruled out; therefore, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail on this consideration as well. 15. No other point was urged. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 17. 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 31st July 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)