IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.2655/2025. Date of Decision: 05th January, 2026. Sunil .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024, registered at Police Station Dharmapur, District Solan, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 376D, 363 and 353 of IPC. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the status report. 3. The FIR, in the case at hand, was registered on 03.02.2024. The petitioner was arrested on the same date. FIR, in the case at hand, has been registered at the behest of the sister of the victim. The allegation made in the FIR is that the victim was forcefully abducted in a car, driven by one Sh. Suraj, who was accompanied by Deepak and a juvenile Vikas @ Kittu. The victim, who alleged to be taken to a secluded place, wherein she was sexually assaulted repeatedly by the multiple 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accused in the vehicle. It was alleged that the bail petitioner was not present in the vehicle at the initial stage, however, he was called later on at the secluded place, wherein the repeated sexual assaults have been committed on the victim. Later the victim was dropped near her home bleeding and in a traumatized condition. 4. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, varying roles have been attributed to the present petitioner at various stages. In the initial statement of the victim recorded on 04.03.2024 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the victim categorically states that no untoward activity was committed by the present bail petitioner, insofar she is concerned. Subsequent thereto, a supplementary statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.03.2024. In the said statement so recorded, the presence of the present bail petitioner in the vehicle, wherein the victim was abducted, was completely denied. It was submitted that the bail petitioner had been called to the spot, where the vehicle had been parked and the victim along with three other persons were sitting inside the car. 5. In the status report also, no untoward activity is stated to have been committed by the bail petitioner qua the victim. Insofar as the Forensic, DNA and medical evidence is concerned, the same does not inculpate the present bail petitioner. 3 6. On conclusion of investigation, challan was filed on 04.04.2024 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, HP. Supplementary challans were filed on 16.11.2024 and 14.08.2025. There are total 34 prosecution witnesses and out of which no witness has been examined till date. From a perusal of the order-sheets placed on record, it is evident that charges in the case at hand was framed on 19.10.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of the prosecution’s witnesses on 02.01.2025, 11.04.2025, 30.06.2025, 13.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 27.10.2025 and 03.01.2023. On none of the dates, even a single statement of prosecution witness was record. Trial would not be concluding in the near future. 7. Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just” procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the Accused. 8. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 184 : 2018 SCC onLine SC 478; Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 4 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453. 9. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 10. While deciding an application for bail, Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. 11. From the status report, so filed, it is evident that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. There is no possibility of flight risk in the case at hand. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 12. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Milan Center, Pine Drive Resort, PO Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, HP. In order to ensure his presence at trial stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail. 5 13. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner, whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the confidence that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court. The respondent/State has not expressed any apprehension regarding him fleeing from the justice and adversely affecting the trial. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial. 14. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024, registered at Police Station Dharmapur, District Solan, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 376D, 363 and 353 of IPC, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this bail order is subject to the following conditions:-. 6 (i) Petitioner shall 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 appropriate application; (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; (iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; & (vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. 16. Needless to say that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioner. 17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 18. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 19. In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., is directed to inform this 7 fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 21. A copy of this order be sent to the District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P and the learned trial Court by FASTER. 23. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and, in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 05th January, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat) Digitally signed by GAURAV SINGH DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=b615aae6b839bd7695619d205a06 49faa3f10ee78fd5fc7d356ef93266e0ead9, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=97f5851e94d1ce4a9d9 b2419311e660ac9051e6298a507d8e42c1 1fe77a95002, CN=GAURAV SINGH Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-01-05 18:29:09 GAURAV SINGH