1 2025:HHC:7042 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP (M) No. : 218 of 2025 Decided on : 20.03.2025 Rakesh Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General, assisted by ASI Tejinder Singh, Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate for the complainant. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.03 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:7042 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., the applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Women Police Station Una, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR, as, according to him, the said case is false one and has been lodged by the prosecutrix with ulterior motive. 3. According to the applicant, he is serving in the Army and posted at Amritsar in Punjab Regiment. 4. Applicant has pleaded that the petitioner met the complainant on the social media site and thereafter, they had started chatting with each other. The applicant has denied that there is any physical relation with the complainant, as alleged. 5. It is the case of the applicant that he is getting married on 07.02.2025 and with an intention to cause 3 2025:HHC:7042 hindrance in his marriage, FIR in question has been lodged by the complainant. 6. Certain undertakings have been given on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 7. In this case, on 07.02.2025, notice of the bail application was accepted by the State and subsequently, interim protection was granted to the applicant. 8. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 06.02.2025, prosecutrix, aged about 27 years, made a complaint, upon which, her statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, has been recorded, in which, she has got recorded that in the year 2021, on the Instagram application, she had started chatting with Rakesh Kumar (applicant). Thereafter, they had exchanged their mobile numbers and started talking with each other. 9. According to the further contents of the statement, made by the prosecutrix, Rakesh Kumar (applicant) had allegedly disclosed that he is serving in 4 2025:HHC:7042 Army and subsequently, Rakesh Kumar (applicant) met her at Gurugram in the year 2023 and expressed his intention to marry her and requested the prosecutrix to disclose this fact to her parents, as, he wants to solemnize the marriage with her. 10. Thereafter, the applicant has requested her to come to Una and consequently, on 04.08.2023, she came to Una, where, the applicant allegedly took her to hotel and on the pretext of marriage, raped her for two days. Subsequently, she had gone back to her home. 11. According to the prosecutrix, Rakesh Kumar (applicant) had refused to solemnize the marriage with her. 12. Lastly, the prosecutrix has mentioned in the complaint that Rakesh Kumar (applicant) raped her on the pretext of marriage. As such, she has prayed that the action be taken against the applicant. 13. Thereafter, FIR in question has been registered by the police. Prosecutrix was medico legally examined at Regional Hospital, Una, where, the physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was handed over to the police, 5 2025:HHC:7042 which was forwarded to the RFSL, Dharamshala for chemical analysis. 14. It is the further case of the police that on 08.02.2025, the physical evidence, so produced by the prosecutrix, was also taken into possession and the statement of witness, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded. 15. Thereafter, the documentary proof, regarding the stay of the prosecutrix and applicant in the hotel at Una, was also taken into possession. 16. It is the further case of the police that on 10.02.2025, in pursuance to the directions, issued by this Court, applicant appeared before the police and he was also medico legally examined. Physical evidence, so collected, was also taken into possession, including the FTA Card, for DNA testing. 17. In this case, the complainant has also put appearance and filed the objections to the bail application, in which, she has mentioned that on 10.02.2025, applicant, along with his relative, came to hotel (name withheld) and threatened the complainant with dire 6 2025:HHC:7042 consequences, if she will not withdraw the FIR in question. Subsequently, the complainant has moved the complaint, before the police, copy of which, has been annexed with the objections. 18. It has also been mentioned in the objections that on 12.02.2025, one person visited the house of the complainant at Gurugram and apprised the prosecutrix that he has been asked by the applicant to tell the complainant to have telephonic conversion with the applicant and in case of refusal, complainant was also threatened to face big trouble. Along with the objections, copy of the complaint has also been annexed. 19. Today, the police has also filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein that the prosecutrix has also got recorded that the applicant raped her on 29.01.2025 at her house at Gurugram on the pretext of marriage. 20. Lastly, it has been mentioned that the report of RFSL, Dharamshala, is still awaited. 21. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. 7 2025:HHC:7042 Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, appearing for the complainant, have prayed that the applicant is not entitled for the relief, as claimed in the application. 22. Heard. 23. The applicant has joined the investigation, in pursuance to the direction of this Court. It is not the case of the police that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in this case. As such, it can be held that the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 24. The role, played by Rakesh Kumar (applicant), in the alleged crime, would be proved during the trial as to whether the alleged raped was on the pretext of marriage or the same was a consensual relationship, between the complainant and the applicant. 25. According to the complainant, she was allegedly raped on 04.08.2023 at Una, whereas, the FIR in question has been lodged on 06.02.2025. No doubt, the prosecution will be at liberty to explain the delay during the trial, 8 2025:HHC:7042 but, at this stage, the said fact cannot be said to be inconsequential. 26. Moreover, the applicant is the permanent resident of District Una and as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 27. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 07.02.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim order, dated 07.02.2025, is made absolute, on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, 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; 9 2025:HHC:7042 28. 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 confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 29. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 30. 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 March 20, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur )