1 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1840 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Deepak Kumar ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Lokinder Kuthleria, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Prashant Sen, Mr. Ajeet Sharma and Ms. Sunena Chandhari, Deputy Advocates General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking grant of bail in F.I.R. No.63/2025, dated 14.7.2025, registered at Police Station, Chuwari, District Chamba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 126(2), and 351 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act (I.T. Act), 2000. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner and victim are major. They fell in love and decided to marry each other. The parents of the victim were not ready for the marriage. When the victim insisted on marrying the petitioner, her mother lodged a false complaint with the police. The police registered the F.I.R. and arrested the petitioner on 15.07.2025. The petitioner cannot solemnize the marriage with the victim as he is lodged in jail. Hence, the bail petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that the victim told her (the informant) that Deepak (the present petitioner) and Chaman stopped her when she was coming to her home. She was taken to 'Nali' where the petitioner raped her, and Chaman prepared the video of the incident. The petitioner and Chaman threatened the victim that her video would be leaked and her family members would be killed in case of any complaint to any person. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted an investigation. The police checked the mobile phone and found the videos in it. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner and victim were medically examined. The video was shared with some people who told about the 3 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) video to the victim's parents. No other F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner Deepak. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner intends to marry the victim. Her parents are not agreeing to the marriage between the petitioner and the victim. The relationship between the parties was consensual. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had raped the victim and prepared the video of the incident. He threatened the victim by showing her the video. This video was shared with other people. The petitioner can intimidate the victim in case of his release on bail. Therefore, 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:27399 ) 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 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:27399 ) 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 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” 6 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) 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. A perusal of the status report shows that a complaint was made by the victim's mother, and the victim accompanied her at the time of making the complaint. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner and victim were in love with each other and the complaint was made by the victim's mother to prevent the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and victim is not correct. 13. The status report also shows that the petitioner and the co-accused had raped the victim. The incident was video recorded, and the video was found on the mobile phone. This video was shared with other persons who revealed the incident to the victim's parents. These allegations prima facie do not show any love affair between the petitioner and the victim; rather, they show that the petitioner had raped the victim and taken advantage of his own wrong by video recording the 8 ( 2025:HHC:27399 ) incident to compel the victim to agree to his unlawful demands. The nature of the crime is heinous, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on this consideration. 14. The status report also shows that the victim was found missing and an F.I.R. was lodged by her parents. In these circumstances, releasing the petitioner on bail will be prejudicial to the interests of the victim. 15. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be entitled to bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. The observations made before shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13 August 2025. (yogesh)