1 2025:HHC:38618 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2391 of 2025 Reserved on : 6 .11.2025 Decided on : 17 .11.2025 Deepak Attri …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant : Applicant in person with Mr. Harmohan Thakur and Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by ASI Ashok Kumar, Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) in case FIR No. 162 of 2025, dated 25.9.2025, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:38618 Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS), with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above- mentioned case, as, he is apprehending his arrest, in the said case. 3. According to the applicant, he is a law abiding citizen, aged 24 years and permanent resident of the address, mentioned in the application. 4. According to the applicant, he has not committed the offence, and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 5. As per the case of the applicant, the complainant has allegedly levelled the allegations against him, on the ground that she was raped by the applicant, on the false pretext of marriage, however, according to him, their relation was consensual. 3 2025:HHC:38618 6. In order to buttress his contention, he has further pleaded that prior to filing the present complaint, by the prosecutrix, the applicant, on 3.9.2025, had made a complaint to the Police Station, City Solan, District Solan, H.P., regarding harassment by the complainant, in which, he has alleged that complainant (respondent No. 2) was harassing and threatening the applicant to commit suicide, in case, he does not marry her. 7. Relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that the complainant also approached Police Post, Dagshai, on 4.9.2025. The matter was, thereafter, compromised. 8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR has been lodged with a concocted story and without any substance. 9. Apart from this, Mr. Harmohan Thakur and Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocates, have given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he 4 2025:HHC:38618 is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS. 10. On the basis of above facts, applicant has sought the relief, as claimed in the present bail application. 11. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.9.2025, respondent No. 2 (complainant) made a written complaint to the Police, disclosing therein that she is resident of village, as mentioned in the complaint, and working in a Factory at Jabali, for the last three years. She has stated in the complaint that she came in contact with applicant, through Instagram app. Thereafter, they started chatting with each other and remained in contact with each other, on phone calls, video calls and whatsapp chats. The prosecutrix is stated to be residing in a rented accommodation, at Kumarhatti. Applicant is stated to have met her while travelling in the bus. Thereafter, they started talking to each other. In the meanwhile, in the month of May, 5 2025:HHC:38618 2025, applicant visited her, in her rented accommodation, and on the pretext of marriage, made physical relations with her. Thereafter, applicant again came to her room, and in the months of May and June, 2025, he repeatedly raped her. 11.1 According to the complainant, she is interested to marry the applicant, and, when, she discussed the matter regarding marriage with the applicant, he put off the matter, on one pretext or the other. She has also stated that the applicant is not interested to marry her. Applicant Deepak is stated to have blocked the number of the complainant. 11.2 Lastly, the complainant has got recorded in her statement that action be taken against the applicant, upon which, FIR has been registered. 11.3 Investigation of the case was entrusted to ASI Ashok Kumar, Incharge, Police Post, Dagshai. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. She was medico-legally examined. Physical evidence, so collected by the 6 2025:HHC:38618 Doctor, was taken into possession, and deposited with malkhana, on 25.9.2025. The statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, by producing her, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 11.4 During investigation, it has been found that for the last one year, applicant came in contact with the prosecutrix, and in the months of May and June, 2025, applicant on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with her, had raped her, and when, the prosecutrix requested him to solemnize the marriage, he has refused to do so. 11.5 Thereafter, the prosecutrix consumed pesticides on 10.9.2025, and remained admitted in Hospital, for about 3-4 days. Thereafter, the prosecutrix again requested the applicant to solemnize marriage with her, but, he has refused to do so, upon which, the prosecutrix has lodged the FIR in question. 7 2025:HHC:38618 11.6 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, in the present case. 11.7 After perusing the status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant, and interim relief was granted to him, on 25.9.2025, and the matter was adjourned for 9.10.2025. 11.8 On 9.10.2025, Police filed fresh status report, disclosing therein, that the possibility cannot be ruled out that in case, interim order is made absolute, he can coerce the prosecution witnesses and may hamper the investigation. 11.9 Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 16.10.2025 and for 30.10.2025. 11.10 On 30.10.2025, the supplementary status report has been filed, according to which, applicant has joined the investigation. He was medico-legally examined. The physical evidence, so collected, by the Doctor, was also taken into possession. No other case 8 2025:HHC:38618 was found to have been registered against the applicant. 11.11 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12. On 6.11.2025, the prosecutrix has also filed the objections to the bail application, through Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Legal Aid Counsel. In the objections, apart from re-asserting the stand, as taken in the complaint, upon which, the FIR has been lodged, she has also levelled the allegations that she has made efforts to save her dignity, as well as, relation with the application, but her efforts remained futile, as applicant, as well as, her family members, had given assurance to sit together and resolve the issue. 12.1 On the basis of said assurance, the prosecutrix had withdrawn the complaint, on 4.9.2025. Thereafter, the prosecutrix, on 7.9.2025, had called the father of the applicant, on mobile phone number 9817234464, but no heed was paid. 9 2025:HHC:38618 12.2 On 9.9.2025, the mother of the prosecutrix again called the mother of the applicant and requested her to have a word with them, upon which, both the families agreed to meet at 10.9.2025, but the applicant, as well as, his family members made derogatory remarks. Consequently, the complainant consumed poison and remained admitted for 3-4 days. 12.3 It is the further case of the complainant that after discharge from the hospital, she had again contacted the applicant and requested him to marry her, but he again refused to marry her and blocked her mobile number. 12.4 Re-asserting the apprehensions, made by the Police, she has prayed that bail application may kindly be dismissed. 13. In the complaint, the age of the prosecutrix has been mentioned as 24 years, and age of the applicant has also been mentioned as 24 years, in the bail application. 10 2025:HHC:38618 14. In this case, the prosecutrix has also annexed the copy of the complaint, dated 4.9.2025, which, she had made to the Incharge, Police Post, Dagshai. Alongwith the objections, the complaint made by the prosecutrix has been obtained by the applicant, under the RTI Act, and placed it on record. In the said complaint, filed on 4.9.2025, the complainant has stated that she is in relationship with the applicant for the last 9-10 months, whereas, in the complaint, dated 23.9.2025, the alleged incident is stated to be of May, 2025. 15. Although, variations in the stand of the prosecutrix, in her two complaints, would be considered by the learned trial Court, however, while deciding the question of bail, this fact cannot be ignored by this Court, as the same would go to the root of the case. 16. Compromise has taken place between the applicant and the complainant, on 4.9.2025, and consequently, the prosecutrix has stated that she does 11 2025:HHC:38618 not want any action in the complaint. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithivirajan versus the State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 126763/2022, then, the applicant is able to make out a case, in his favour. Relevant paragraphss 6 and 7 of the judgment is reproduced, as under: 6. This Court has time and again reiterated that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions. need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the beginning; second, that very prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. [See: The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2019) 9 SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 347]. 7. The instant case is one of consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from the record 12 2025:HHC:38618 that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted. 17. So far as the apprehensions, as expressed, by the Police, in the present case, are concerned, those apprehensions are too short to decline the relief to the applicant, as prayed for, as for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed. 18. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Sirmour, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, interim order, dated 25.9.2025, is made absolute, he may not be available for trial. 19. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 25.9.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby 13 2025:HHC:38618 made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 162 of 2025, dated 25.9.2025, registered with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., under Section 69 of the BNS, on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly 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. 20. 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 14 2025:HHC:38618 confined, only, to the disposal of the present applications. 21. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. (Virender Singh) Judge November 17, 2025 Kalpana