2025:HHC:29398 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 2024 of 2025 Reserved on : 27.08.2025 Decided on : 30.08.2025 Itesh Thakur …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant      :  Applicant in person with Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma   and   Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates   General,   with   Mr. Rohit Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate   General, for respondent No. 1/State. : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2/complainant. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Itesh   Thakur,   has   filed   the   present application  under   Section   483   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik 2 2025:HHC:29398 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), by   surrendering   himself   to   the   custody   of   the   Court   on 20.08.2025. 2. By  surrendering himself to the custody of the Court, the applicant has sought his release on bail, in case FIR   No.   159/2025,   dated   04.08.2025,   registered   under Section 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention  of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘SC&ST   Act’),   with   Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has nothing to do with the offences as mentioned in the application. 4. The investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed. According to the applicant, he had met the prosecutrix for the first time around 15th July, 2025, when she   joined   as   a   Safai   Karamchari,   in   a   private   hospital namely Harihar Hospital, where the applicant was working 3 2025:HHC:29398 as Ward Attendant. After interaction of only few days, the prosecutrix expressed her desire to marry the applicant and when the applicant made up his mind for the same and agreement to live in “a live in relationship” was entered into, by both, the complainant­prosecutrix and applicant, on 01st August, 2025 at District Courts Mandi, which was attested by Notary. Thereafter, the applicant came to know about the fact that the complainant­prosecutrix is a married lady, having two kids and this fact, according to the applicant, has   not   been   disclosed   to   him,   by   the   complainant­ prosecutrix. 5. Apart from this, Sh. Vijender Katoch, 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, during the pendency of the trial. 6. The   applicant   had   earlier   filed   the   application under Section 482 of BNSS, bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1926 of 2025,   in   which   this   Court   had   granted   interim   relief, however, in view of the provisions of SC&ST Act, the earlier 4 2025:HHC:29398 application was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 8. The State was put to notice on 20.08.2025, upon which,   the   State   has   filed   the   status   report,   disclosing therein that on 04.08.2025, prosecutrix, wife of X, moved a complaint before the police, disclosing therein, that she was married in the year 2015, and out of the wedlock, they have been   blessed   two   children. However,   due   to   some misunderstanding, she has started residing in her maternal home   and   started   working   as   Safai   Karamchari   in   a hospital, where applicant Itesh Thakur was also working, who had started talking with her and instigating her against her husband. He has also allured her to marry and tried to have physical relations with her. However, the prosecutrix had resisted his intention. 8.1 According   to   her,   on   19.07.2025,   when   after finishing her duty, she was on her way, then applicant told her that he is having an urgent work and allured her to give some articles, which have been kept in a room and he took 5 2025:HHC:29398 her to said room. When she entered in the room, he had locked the room from inside and raped her. Thereafter, he had   started   blackmailing   her   on   the   said   pretext   and compelled her to surrender before him. 8.2 According   to   her,   the   applicant   has   given   her something to eat, upon which, she became unconscious and thereafter, he used to have physical relations with her. On 01st  August,  2025, the  applicant  had  blackmailed her to reach   at   Court,   by   threatening   that   he   would   make   her obscene video viral. When she reached at Court Complex, her signatures on blank papers were obtained. When she inquired, he had disclosed that he had purchased a vehicle and her name has been marked as witness. 8.3 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against the applicant, upon which, FIR was registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8.4 The prosecutrix was medico legally examined in Civil Hospital Ratti and physical evidence was collected by the   Doctor,   which   were   handed   over   to   the   police. On 05.08.2025, the prosecutrix was directed to associate in the 6 2025:HHC:29398 investigation, however, she along with her husband and one person came, but, not cooperated with the investigation. 8.5 It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on 03.08.2025,   a   complaint   was   moved   by   the   prosecutrix, disclosing therein, that she is residing separately from her husband and residing with applicant Itesh, however, Itesh was not marrying with her. However, on 05.08.2025, both of them had decided to compromise the matter. 8.6 It is the further case of the police that when, the factual   position   as   mentioned   in   the   complaint   dated 03.08.2025, was verified, as both the parties i.e. prosecutrix and applicant, were talking with each other with love in the police station. In this regard, police has relied upon the CCTV footage of the Police Station. 8.7 During  investigation, the Poojari of Mahamaya Mata   Temple   Sundernagar   was   associated   and   his statement, under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded, who has   deposed   about   the   marriage   on   31.07.2025   and   the bridegroom had paid Rs. 1100/­ as “Dakshina” through UPI. When the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under 7 2025:HHC:29398 Section   183   of   BNSS,   apart   from   the   allegations   already levelled against the applicant, she has deposed that “On the day,   when   Itesh   (applicant)   applied   vermilion   on   her forehead, the prosecutrix requested him to take her to his house, upon which, he stated that how he could take her to his house, as she is from lower caste and he is Thakur and he cannot take her to his home”, upon which Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act was added, in this case. 8.8 Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to   Dy. S.P.   Dharampur. In   pursuance   of   the   directions dated 06.08.2025, passed in Cr.MP 1926 of 2025, applicant Itesh has joined the investigation and he was medico legally examined. 8.9 As per the status report, except the present case, no other case is found to have been registered against the applicant. 8.10 During investigation, it has been found that the prosecutrix introduced herself to be a divorcee and with her consent, she has solemnized the marriage with applicant in Mahamaya Temple Sundernagar. Thereafter, they had gone 8 2025:HHC:29398 to   Court   on   01.08.2025,   where   live   in   relationship agreement was prepared. 8.11 During the course of investigation, prosecutrix has   disclosed   that   her   relations   with   the   applicant   were consensual. 8.12 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8.13 It is also the case of the police that CDRs of the applicant and prosecutrix were obtained. They were found to be in touch with each other on regular intervals. 9. In the status reports, which have been filed by the   police,   in   this   case,   there   is   no   prayer   about   the custodial interrogation of the applicant. Although, he has joined the investigation, but when the police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation, then rejection of present application is nothing, but pre trial punishment, which is prohibited under the Law. 10. The   applicant   has   changed   her   stand,   as   on 04.08.2025, she has levelled the allegations of rape against the applicant on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with 9 2025:HHC:29398 her, whereas she is already married and blessed with two children. In the complaint dated 03.08.2025, as per the status report, she has deposed that she is residing with applicant Itesh, who is not solemnizing marriage with her. 11. From this stand, it has rightly been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the relations between the applicant and prosecutrix seems to be consensual. 12. Even   otherwise,   considering   the   stand   of   the police,   the   affidavit   with   regard   to   their   marriage   in   a temple, as well as, execution of the agreement regarding live in relationship, are the facts which are sufficient to grant the relief to the applicant, at this stage. 13. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 20.08.2025, is liable to be   confirmed. Consequently,   interim   order,   dated 20.08.2025, is made absolute, subject to the conditions as imposed, vide order dated 20.08.2025 and the following two conditions: a) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; b) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial 10 2025:HHC:29398 Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 14. 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. 15. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. (Virender Singh) Judge August 30, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)