1.  2025:HHC:29207 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1758 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 Pramod Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State. None for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Pramod Kumar, has filed the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.86 of 2025, dated 03.05.2025, registered under Sections 376, 342, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. 3. As per the applicant, presently he is in judicial custody, whereas, the victim respondent No.2, is resident of Nepal. According to the applicant, he has tried his best to bring her back, but she refused to come. 4. It is the case of the applicant that victim/respondent No.2 has visited India on 22.04.2025 and demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and when, the applicant failed to meet her demand, then, the present FIR has been registered. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the police could not collect any evidence, connecting the applicant, with the crime in question. 6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 8. When, put to notice, the police filed the status report, disclosing therein, the following facts:- 3. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 8.1. On 03.05.2025, the victim, who is stated to be permanent resident of Nepal and presently residing at Salapadh Colony, along with her son and sister, appeared before the police and made a complaint, disclosing therein, that she is permanent resident of Kathmandu and in the year 2018, she had a conversation with applicant-Pramod Kumar. Thereafter, the applicant assured her to solemnize the marriage and subsequently, applicant-Pramod Kumar went to Kathmandu to take her back. 8.2. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter, Pramod Kumar (applicant) took her to Sundernagar and from there, he took her to Dharamshala, where, her entire family was residing. She stayed for about 3 months at Dharamshala, where, the sister of the applicant, namely Saroj, disclosed her that the applicant is already married, whereas, according to the complainant, Pramod Kumar (applicant) apprised her that he is not married and he will solemnize marriage with her. 8.3. As per the further case of the complainant, on the pretext of marriage, applicant made physical relations with her. Consequently, she got pregnant and gave birth to a son. Despite repeated requests, when, applicant has not solemnized the 4. 2025:HHC:29207 ) marriage with her, then, the applicant and his mother threatened to kill her and they used to lock her inside the room. 8.4. It is the further case of the complainant that from the year 2018 to 2022, on the pretext of marriage, she was being raped by the applicant and thereafter, the complainant was thrown out of his home. 8.5. It is the further case of the complainant that Pramod Kumar (applicant) and his family members had repeatedly given the assurance to her on phone that they will solemnize her marriage with the applicant. 10.5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to take action against Pramod Kumar (applicant) and his mother, upon which, police registered the case, under Sections 347, 342 and 506 of IPC. 8.6. It is the case of the police that initial investigation was entrusted to ASI Ashwani Kumar. Spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Photographs were clicked. The victim was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. Her statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded. Subsequently, she was produced, before the Court of learned ACJM, Sundernagar, where, her statement, under Section 183 of BNSS, was recorded. Thereafter, for DNA profiling, the blood samples of the son of the victim were obtained. 5. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 8.7. It is the further case of the police that during the investigation, blood samples of the son of the victim were obtained from DNA profiling and got preserved from MO, Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. On 06.05.2025, Parmod Kumar (applicant) appeared before the police, he was also medico legally examined and his blood samples were obtained for DNA profiling. During investigation, the child victim identified the room at Dharamshala, where, she was allegedly raped. 8.8. During investigation, it was found that applicant was married with one Neha Sen on 21.01.2025, however, on 12.07.2024, his marriage with Neha was dissolved, by way of decree of divorce passed by the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 8.9. It is the further case of the police that despite of marrying Neha Sen, the applicant kept the prosecutrix, as his wife in the year 2018, at Kathmandu (Nepal), Bhatehar (Dharamshala) and Slaavkot (Sundernagar). 8.10. As per the DNA report, the applicant is found to be the biological father of the baby of the prosecutrix. The applicant was arrested on 13.07.2025 and was produced before the Court on 14.07.2025. 6. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 8.11. As per the status report, the charge sheet has been filed on 28.06.2025 and case is now listed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, on 04.08.2025. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10. As per the stand taken by the police in this case, the charge sheet has been filed. Meaning thereby, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. 11. As per the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, the applicant assured her to solemnize marriage and under the said pretext, physical relations were made and she got pregnant and gave birth to a son. 12. As per the allegations, the prosecutrix and applicant came in contact with each other, in the year 2018 and from the years 2018 to 2022, he has repeatedly raped her and thereafter, thrown her out of the home and not performed the marriage with her. 13. Prosecutrix, in this case, has been arrayed, as respondent No.2. When, put to notice, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, that she has been intimated, since she had been ordered to be served, through 7. 2025:HHC:29207 ) SHO Police Station, Sundernagar, but the prosecutix has replied that presently, she is in Nepal. 14. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, as the chances of commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravish Singh Rana versus State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in (2025) INSC 635, has held that in the case of false promise to marry, it must be demonstrated that the promise was false at its inception and the maker had no intention of upholding his words at the time of making the promise. Relevant paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 are reproduced as under:- 10. An overview of the facts makes it clear that relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) had been there since 2021. This relationship was not merely of knowing each other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented accommodation. The FIR does not allege that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage. Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between. In such circumstances, a presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship that spanned over two years. 8. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 11. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), this Court held that where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker, at the time of making the promise, itself was not to abide by it, but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”. However, a mere breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. Therefore, to establish a false promise, it would have to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of making the promise. 12. In Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana{8}, this Court observed:- “21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after fully understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutor agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches to a 9. 2025:HHC:29207 ) conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.” 16. As per the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, applicant-Pramod Kumar took her back from Kathmandu and assured her to solemnize marriage and thereafter, she stayed with the applicant along with his family. Not only this, they stayed for about three months at Dharamshala, where, the sister of the applicant allegedly disclosed to her that his first marriage has broken down. In such, situation, it would be proved during the trial, whether, the relationship was on the false pretext of marriage or it was a consensual relationship. 17. At the time of deciding the application for bail, detailed discussion about the merits of the case should be avoided as the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution as well as the case of the applicant. 18. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 19. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.86 of 2025, dated 03.05.2025, registered under Sections 376, 342, 506 & 34 of IPC, with Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., on his furnishing 10. 2025:HHC:29207 ) personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 20. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application; b) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 21. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. 22. It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 11. 2025:HHC:29207 ) 23. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software. 24. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. (Virender Singh) Judge August 29, 2025 (subhash) RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.08.29 14:15:03 +0530