1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2254 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Decided on: 06.10.2025 Sujal ...…. 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 Aditya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 81 of 2025, dated 02.07.2025, registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that, as per F.I.R., the victim and the petitioner knew each other for the last nine months. The petitioner proposed to marry her on 29.10.2024. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) petitioner’s family member visited the victim’s house on 06.01.2025 to discuss the marriage. The victim's father accepted the proposal and sought two years for the marriage. The petitioner's family agreed. The victim started living with the petitioner at Samala. The petitioner entered into a physical relationship with the victim. The parties had a physical relationship on 26.06.2025. The next morning, the petitioner's family members refused to allow the victim to go to the petitioner's house. The petitioner stopped talking to her. The allegations are false. The police have submitted the final report, and the investigation is complete. The petitioner is aged 19 years. He has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is the sole earner of his family. He is a permanent resident of district Shimla, and he has deep roots in the society. There is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by a filing status report asserting that the victim and the petitioner knew each other for the last nine months. The petitioner proposed to marry the victim on 29.10.2024. The petitioner's family members came to the victim's house on 06.01.2025 with the proposal to marry the petitioner to the victim. The victim's father accepted the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) proposal and sought two years to solemnise the marriage. The petitioner started residing with the victim. He maintained a physical relationship with her. The parties had a sexual relationship on 26.06.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner's family members came and asked the victim not to visit the petitioner's house. The petitioner had also stopped talking to the victim. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner and recorded the statements of witnesses. Samples and case property were sent to the SFSL, but no blood or semen were detected. As per the Medical Officer, the possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court on 08.07.2025. The matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Rohru. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Aditya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr Aditya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) falsely implicated. The allegations in the F.I.R. show that the relationship between the parties was consensual. There is no evidence that the petitioner has refused to marry the victim. The victim's father had sought for two years to marry the petitioner and the victim, which has not elapsed. The F.I.R. was lodged due to some misunderstanding. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State, submitted that the petitioner entered into a physical relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage. He failed to fulfill the promise of marriage. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. 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. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Con- stitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are ex- tracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the is- sue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford Uni- versity Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice vali- date the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to com- mit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict fur- ther crimes on the members of society. Bail dis- cretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exer- cised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the na- ture of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, be- haviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the ac- cused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of grant- ing the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic it- self) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Need- less to record, however, that the grant of bail is 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While place- ment of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other cir- cumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic consid- erations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, de- pendent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that al- though it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-applica- tion of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as un- der with regard to the circumstances under which an or- der granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, nor- mally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the ac- cused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judi- ciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or rea- sonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the wit- nesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis sup- plied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exer- cise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that lib- erty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vi- tal facts of the case brought on record. Due con- sideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punish- ment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the petitioner had proposed to marry the victim. His family members visited the victim's house and talked about the marriage. The victim's father accepted the proposal on 06.01.2025 and sought two years to solemnize the marriage. The period of two years has not elapsed, and there is nothing to show that the petitioner had refused to marry the victim. Therefore, the essential requirement of Section 69 of the BNS that a promise was made without any intent to fulfill the same is missing in the present case. 11. The victim is a major. She has not stated that the petitioner had raped her. Her grievance is that a promise of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) marriage was made, which was not fulfilled. This grievance is prima facie not justified based on the material mentioned in the status report. 12. The report of analysis shows that no human blood or semen was detected. Therefore, there is no corroboration of the victim's testimony by the report of the analysis. 13. The status report also shows that the police have filed the charge-sheet and the matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Rohru. The case has not been committed. It will take some time to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, to complete various formalities. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars, hoping for an early conclusion of the trial. The status report also does not justify the pre-trial detention. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 14. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of district Shimla, which is not stated to be incorrect. This shows that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 16. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33768 ) 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. The observations made herein-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 06 October, 2025. (yogesh) YOGESH SHARMA Digitally signed by YOGESH SHARMA Date: 2025.10.06 11:54:05 +0530