Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3722 (HP)

Daulat Ram v. State of H. P.

2025-09-19

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner, Daulat Ram, who is in custody since 29.03.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024, under Sections 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmour, [HP]. FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION: 2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is averred that an FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024 was registered under Section 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and 506 of Indian Penal Code but the petitioner has no role in the aforesaid accusation. It is averred that the petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory bail [Cr.MP(M) No.599 of 2024], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.03.2024, [Annexure P-1]. It is further averred that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Delay in lodging the FIR has also been averred in the instant petition. It is averred that the bail petitioner is in custody for last more than one year and the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, the prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that there are no past criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has furnished the undertaking that he shall not tamper with the evidence and shall abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In these circumstances, the instant application has been through his paternal uncle, praying for bail, in the instant case. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT: 3. Upon listing of the instant bail application, notice was issued to the State Authorities with directions to file Status Report and likewise notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 victim to file objections, if any. On 28.03.2025, the Status Report was filed by the State Authorities. Even objections were filed by Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ on 08.05.2025. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT: 3. Upon listing of the instant bail application, notice was issued to the State Authorities with directions to file Status Report and likewise notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 victim to file objections, if any. On 28.03.2025, the Status Report was filed by the State Authorities. Even objections were filed by Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ on 08.05.2025. Upon listing of matter on 18.07.2025, Learned Senior Counsel, filed an undertaking dated 05.07.2025, [Annexure P-2] before this Court that the bail petitioner is a Government Servant and as per orders dated 01.04.2024 he has been placed under suspension and his headquarter has been fixed, in the Office of Deputy Director [Higher Education] at Nahan, District Sirmour (HP). In this background, an undertaking has been furnished to this Court that in case the plea for bail is accepted then, the bail petitioner shall remain at the place of his headquarters at Nahan and he shall not visit Satahan i.e. the place of residence of victim which also happens to be his native place till the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim is recorded. State Authorities filed a response in the form of Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025, apprehending that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may violate his undertaking furnished to this Court. 4. Perusal of Status Report dated 28.03.2025 and Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025 indicates that the averments contained in these Status Report(s) are pari-materia. 4(i). Perusal of the Status Report(s) indicates that the mother of the Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ submitted a complaint to the police on 24.03.2024, stating therein that the victim was 30 years of age and was married to one ‘K’ in October, 2023. It is averred that the victim was deaf and dumb and was working as Multi Task Worker in Government Middle School, Satahan since 28.07.2022. It is averred that on 15.02.2024, two accused namely Ganga Ram and the bail petitioner [Daulat Ram] had resorted to unwarranted acts with her daughter-Victim. Status Report further indicates that on 26.03.2024, the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. through special educator. Status Report further indicates that though the police authorities have taken the Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ for medical examination but she refused to undergo medical examination. Status Report further indicates that on 26.03.2024, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. Status Report further indicates that though the police authorities have taken the Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ for medical examination but she refused to undergo medical examination. Status Report further indicates that on 26.03.2024, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. Status Report indicates that bail petitioner is a Chowkidar in Government Middle School Satahan, who has been placed under suspension on account of registration of criminal case by Deputy Director of Higher Education on 01.04.2024. In this background, the Status Report has been submitted to this Court for consideration. REBUTTAL CONTENTION BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL: 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the challan in the instant case was filed before the Trial Court on 20.05.2025. It is further contended that out of 28 PWs, the State Authorities have examined only 08 PWs as on day. He further contends that the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim has not been recorded as yet, on the plea, that she was in pregnancy and had delivered a child on 04.08.2025. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even the statement of PW-1 [complainant-mother] and PW-2 [husband of victim] and PW-8 [father of victim] has also not supported the prosecution story. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the bail petitioner is in custody for about one year and six months and since thecompletion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the plea for bail, may be accepted by this Court. 5. Heard Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for Respondent No.2-victim and have gone through the available material on record. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 6. 5. Heard Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for Respondent No.2-victim and have gone through the available material on record. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 6. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regulating the claim for bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , Sushila Aggarwal versus State- NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250 ; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that after taking into account the accusation, gravity, status, position in society claim for bail is to be examined. While considering claim for bail, allegations being frivolous or groundless is to be seen. Depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension based on cogent and convincing material that the accused may thereafter threaten the witnesses or the victim may be examined and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. It is mandated that bail can neither be by way of a punishment nor can it be preventative, as prolonged incarceration or accusation curtails the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, while examining the claim for bail, a balance has to be carved between the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21, vis-à-vis the rights of victim and societal interests also. 6(i). However, while examining the claim for bail, a balance has to be carved between the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21, vis-à-vis the rights of victim and societal interests also. 6(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad-parameters referred to above. 6(ii). While dealing with the claim for bail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.)Nos. 516–522 of 2025), in State of Karnataka versus Sri Darshan, etc. has mandated that while considering claim for bail neither a detailed examination of the evidence nor any findings touching the merits of the case is to be resorted to. In backdrop of above parameters, this Court proceeds to analyze the claim for bail in the instant case. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from the status report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Daulat Ram], is entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following reasons: PRIMA FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST BAIL PETITIONER DOUBTFUL: 7(i). Perusal of the Status Report dated 28.03.2025 and the Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025 and the material on record indicates that though the mother of [Respondent No.2]-Victim had submitted a complaint to the police on 24.03.2024, alleging wrongful act to have been done with her daughter-victim on 15.02.2024 but, a perusal of the material on record, including the Statements of material witnesses i.e. complainant- PW-1 [i.e. mother of victim], PW-2, [husband of victim] and PW-8 [father of victim], reveals that the complainant and close relatives of the victim have not supported the prosecution case but they have put-up a stand that accused including the bail petitioner and the students of school have harassed the Respondent No.2-Victim by taking work of cleaning of waste of dog in school. As on day, none of prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. As on day, none of prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Even, the material on record, reveals that Respondent No.2-Victim was taken for medical examination on 24.03.2024 wherein, the victim and her parents refused to undergo medical examination. Since the trial is underway, the accusation against the petitioner under Section 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is to be examined, tested and proved during the trial and, therefore, the bail cannot be denied, by presuming the guilt, at this stage. In these circumstances, the prima-facie accusation appears to be doubtful at this stage. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 8. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception it has been mandated that the personal liberty of a person cannot be curtailed on mere accusations; and an accused is to be treated as innocent till the guilt was established in accordance with law, as has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:- “11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66 , this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66 , this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under: "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police." PERSONAL LIBERTY AND CLAIM FOR BAIL: 9. While dealing with the claim for bail, in the context of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India being sacrosanct, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and Another, in the following terms:- “18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 22. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.” ADHERANCE TO PRINCIPLE:- BAIL IS RULE: 10. Depriving the petitioner of the concession of bail shall negate the principle that ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’, as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024,as under:- “49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus: “10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 . We quote: “What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: “I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial”” 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.” PROLONGED INCARCERATION & INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be of paramount importance and the action of prolonging the incarceration so as to make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated by granting bail. Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts of this case, certainly amounts to curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation[s] or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight. NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 12. Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner asserts that the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents. Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight. NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 12. Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner asserts that the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents. The status report does not indicate any past criminal antecedents and, therefore, in view of these facts, the present accusation which is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial, cannot be made the basis for prolonging the incarceration of the bail petitioner in facts of in the instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 13. Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities have not pointed out any cogent and convincing material to show that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. 13(i). Notably, the petitioner has furnished an undertaking dated 05.07.2025 which reads as under: “Affidavit/Undertaking I, Daulat Ram S/O Sh. Roop Singh, Age 50 Years, Resident of Village Satahan, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour H.P. do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under. 1. That I am Co-accused in case titled State of H.P Versus Ganga Ram, FIR NO 15/2024 dated 24/3/2024 under section 376, 506 IPC registered at P.S Sangrah District Sirmour H.P. pending trial before Ld. Special Judge (POCSO) Nahan which is fixed on 17/7/2025. 2. That I am a government servant, under suspension on account of the aforesaid case with headquarters at Nahan, District Sirmour H.P. 3. That I shall not leave the headquarter at Nahan nor I shall visit my Native place and that of the victim i.e. Village Satahan, Post Office Sangra, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour, [H.P] until the statement of the victim is recorded before the court. Sd/- Deponent However, a perusal of the Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025 expresses apprehension that, in case the petitioner is granted bail, he may violate his undertaking dated 05.07.2025 by visiting village Satahan, i.e. the place of residence of victim [which happens to be village of bail petitioner also] by influencing her or her family members. The apprehension, if any, of State Authorities are being adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. 13(ii). The apprehension, if any, of State Authorities are being adequately safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. 13(ii). Even, while dealing with claim for bail relating to an accusation under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Honble Supreme Court in Arjun Jalba Ichke versus The State of Maharashtra & another, in Criminal Appeal No. 000268 of 2025 [arising from SLP(CRL.) No.13521/2024] has granted concession of bail, by imposing a similar condition in the following terms:- “Further, one of the conditions shall be that the appellant on release shall neither visit nor reside in the territory of Vashi in Navi Mumbai nor make any efforts to contact or meet the victim and her family. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.” Perusal of undertaking dated 05.07.2025, [Annexure P-2] furnished by bail petitioner-Daulat Ram reveals that petitioner is a Government servant and due to registration of criminal case, he has been placed under suspension and his headquarters have been fixed at Nahan in District Sirmour (HP) and he has undertaken that he shall neither leave his headquarter at Nahan nor shall he visit his native place at Satahan which happens to be the place of Victim-Respondent No.2 until the statement of victim is recorded by Trial Court. Moreover, since the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim has not been recorded due to her pregnancy on 04.08.2025, coupled with the fact that the aforesaid undertaking furnished to this Court is inconsonance with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Jabla Ichke (supra), and the fact that prolongation of detention cannot continue endlessly solely on the ground that the statement of Respondent No.2 is yet to be recorded, for which no date has been fixed as yet with the added fact that trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, the prayer for bail, in peculiar facts of instant case is accepted. The apprehension, if any of the State Authorities canbe safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE : 14. The apprehension, if any of the State Authorities canbe safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE : 14. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material on record to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence of any cogent and convincing material, the plea for bail, deserves to be granted to the petitioner, in the instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT: 15. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of the State that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, inpeculiar facts of this case, this Court impose stringent conditions in later part of this order. OBJECTIONS BY VICTIM THROUGH FATHER CANNOT BE SOLE BASIS FOR PROLONGING INCARCERATION: 16. Learned Counsel for the victim has objected to the grant of bail on the ground that the bail petitioner may threaten the victim/complainant or the family members of the victim. Mere apprehension that the bail petitioner may tamper with evidence or threaten complainant or her family or the victim appears to be misconceived and is without merit, at this stage, in view of the fact, that the trial is underway, wherein, out of 28 PWs evidence of 8 PWs have been examined by the Trial Court, as yet. Even testimony of material witnesses i.e. the complainant and the husband and father have already been recorded by Trial Court, who have not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that a balance has to be carved out between the rights of the accused vis-à-vis rights of the victim and societal interests also. No cogent and convincing material has been placed on record, by the objector that since the date of arrest, the petitioner has directly or indirectly caused any inducement or threat either to the complainant or victim or any family members. A bald objection, without any cogent and convincing material cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. No cogent and convincing material has been placed on record, by the objector that since the date of arrest, the petitioner has directly or indirectly caused any inducement or threat either to the complainant or victim or any family members. A bald objection, without any cogent and convincing material cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. Even a perusal of the objections dated 08.05.2025 filed by the Respondent No.2 that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the victim or his family. Objection of Respondent No.2 cannot be the sole basis for denying bail just by presuming the guilt and cannot form basis for curtailing the personal liberty by prolonging the detention of the petitioner endlessly, when investigation is complete and the challan stands filed and trial is underway. CONCLUSION: 17. Objection of Respondent No.2 cannot be the sole basis for denying bail just by presuming the guilt and cannot form basis for curtailing the personal liberty by prolonging the detention of the petitioner endlessly, when investigation is complete and the challan stands filed and trial is underway. CONCLUSION: 17. In the facts of instant case, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that firstly, prima facie prosecution story appearsto be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage even as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report(s) reveal that the bail petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2024 and is undergoing incarceration for about one years and six months; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, when out of total 28 PWs, only 8 PWs have been examined and the trial is still likely to take considerable time; and fourthly, delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner; and fifthly, the bail petitioner- accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative ; and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of the accused fleeing away from trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that petitioner has misused liberty granted to him earlier; and tenthly, the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial; and eleventhly, the denial of the right of speedy trial as mandated in Article 21 is an added factor for granting bail ; and lastly, in order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and the victim vis-à-vis the interests of the State, this Court imposes stringent condition in this order hereinafter mandating that infraction, violation or misuse of the concession- liberty shall entitle the State Authorities to seek cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Daulat Ram] for enlargement on bailcarries weight, in peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 18. Based on the above discussion and the material on record and the mandate of law and for reasons recorded hereinabove; and in the peculiar facts, the instant petition is allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Daulat Ram] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Daulat Ram] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each {Rupees Fifty Thousand each} with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court; (ii) Petitioner shall undertake to appear in the trial hereinafter, except for his medical exigencies and the exemption granted therefore, if any, in accordance with law; (iii) Petitioner shall abide by undertaking dated 05.07.2025 [Annexure P-2] furnished to this Court. Bail petitioner shall neither leave the place of headquarters at Nahan nor shall visit the place of residence of the Respondent No.2-Victim i.e. Satahan, Post Office Sangrah, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour (HP) till the statement of victim is recorded by Learned Trial Court; (iv) In case suspension is revoked hereinafter but before recording the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim, the petitioner shall be posted in vicinity of Nahan only; (v) Bail petitioner directly or indirectly shall not make any attempts to re-associate with the victim girl in any manner either through a device or in-person; (vi) Bail petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the permission of Trial Court. (vii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (viii) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. (vii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (viii) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (ix) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court; (x) Petitioner after release, shall report to Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour; (xi) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (xii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (xiii) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly}to witnesses or the victim or any other person acquainted with the case; (xiv) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises; (xv) Learned Trial Court can impose any other condition, if so desires, to ensure the presence and effective progress of trial hereinafter; (xvi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (xvii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.; 19. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove. 20. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. 21. 20. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. 21. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Sirmour at Nahan as well as Deputy Director [Higher Education] Sirmour at Nahan, [H.P.], for ensuring compliance of condition No. 18(iii) & 18(iv) of this order; and also to keep an update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner [Daulat Ram], in terms of this order. In aforesaid terms, the instant petitioner and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.