1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1996 of 2025 Reserved on: 23.09.2025 Decided on: 07 .10.2025 Gaurav Banerjee ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the Respondent/State: Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional. Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.32 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023, registered at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was found missing and the matter was reported to police. The police registered the FIR and searched for her. The victim and petitioner were found in Ludhiana. The victim disclosed that the petitioner/accused had sexual intercourse with her. The petitioner was arrested. The DNA profile on the clothes of the victim matched the DNA profile of the petitioner. The MLC showed that a sexual assault had taken place with the victim. The petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ludhiana. The police have filed a charge sheet. Statements of the victim and her mother were recorded on 24.04.2024. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim's mother sent the victim, aged 12 years, to bring some articles on 07.08.2023, but the victim did not return. The victim's parents searched for her but could not find her. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The record from the school was collected, and the date of birth of the victim was 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) found to be 09.11.2009. The police received secret information that the victim was residing with the petitioner at Ludhiana. The police went to Ludhiana and recovered the petitioner and the victim. The victim revealed that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with her. The victim and the accused were medically examined. The case property and the samples were sent to SFSL, and as per the report of analysis, human semen was found in the victim’s ‘pyjama’. The DNA from the pyjama matched the petitioner’s DNA. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the victim was sexually assaulted. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.09.2023. Twelve witnesses out of nineteen witnesses have been examined. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Raman Jamalta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No.1-State. 5. Mr Raman Jamalta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 2023. The prosecution is unable to complete the evidence, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this court in Praveen Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online HP 3167, in support of his submission. 6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State, submitted that the petitioner had kidnapped and raped a 12-year-old girl. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. The petitioner had sought adjournments, and the Court also remained vacant, leading to a delay in the trial. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 24.10.2025 and 25.10.2025. The prosecution would complete the evidence on these dates. Hence, 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) 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 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) 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 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 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) 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 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 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) 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 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 victim was found with the petitioner at Ludhiana. She disclosed that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her. Her ‘pyajama’ had human semen stains, and the DNA profile taken from those stains matched the petitioner's DNA profile. These circumstances, prima facie, establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime. 11. The status report shows that the victim was born on 09.11.2009. She was found missing on 07.08.2023. Therefore, she was less than 14 years of age on the date of the incident. The petitioner is aged 26 years. Keeping in view the age difference 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) between the petitioner and the victim, the submission that the act of the petitioner was heinous has to be accepted as correct. 12. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. This submission is not acceptable. The matter could not be taken up till 09.02.2024 because the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. The act of the Court will not prejudice anyone. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be faulted for the leave taken by the Court. The record also shows that the co-accused Deepak had absconded, and the evidence could not be recorded on 12.08.2025 and 13.08.2025. Deepak surrendered on 11.09.2025, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 24.10.2025 and 25.10.2025. The fact that the matter is listed on two consecutive dates and only four witnesses remained to be examined does not support the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in the progress of the trial. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for seeking bail in case there is no effective progress on the dates fixed. 13. In Praveen Kumar’s case (supra), the Court found that the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court after 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:33884 ) six months, and not all the witnesses were summoned, which showed that the prosecution’s case was not likely to be completed. In the present case, the matter has been fixed within a month, and all the witnesses have been summoned. Therefore, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 14. Considering the nature of the offence, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 15. 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 07 October, 2025. (yogesh)