2025:HHC:16065 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 511 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.05.2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025. Mani Roy ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the informant : Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2025 vide F.I.R. No. 01 of 2025, dated 07.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16065 Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. The victim and the petitioner were in love with each other. The victim was mature enough to understand her well- being. It was a case of tacit consent. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the district of Solan, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim’s mother filed a complaint stating that the victim was 17 years old. She slipped and sustained injuries. She was taken to the hospital at Solan, from where she was referred to IGMC, Shimla. Her medical tests were conducted, and it was found after the tests that the victim is pregnant. She revealed that the petitioner had entered into a physical relationship with her after promising to marry her. Thereafter, the police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victim was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She aborted, and samples were taken from the product of conception. The victim initially refused to make any statement; however, she subsequently made a statement that she was in regular touch with the petitioner. The petitioner promised to marry her and 3 2025:HHC:16065 entered into a physical relationship with her. The police arrested the petitioner. The samples were sent to SFSL, and the results of the analyses are awaited. Hence, the status report. 3. The informant filed a reply asserting that the victim was in love with the petitioner. The victim wanted to marry the petitioner; therefore, she refused to undergo her medical examination. The victim was not interested in instituting any complaint against the petitioner. The parties decided to marry each other in July 2026. Hence, it was prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the present case. 4. A rejoinder was filed asserting that, as per the report of SFSL, Junga, the petitioner was not found biological father of the product of conception. The supplementary statement recorded through the eSakshya App is not admissible in evidence as the same is not supported by the requisite certificate under Section 63(c) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2025:HHC:16065 5. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant. 6. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the victim had initially refused to make any statement or to undergo her medical examination. The report of the DNA analysis shows that the petitioner is not the biological father of the product of conception. This falsifies the victim’s version that she became pregnant because of a physical relationship with the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The testimony of the victim is accepted to be correct and cannot be rejected merely because the forensic report does not support her version. Forensic report is a corroborative piece of evidence, which is to be evaluated by the 5 2025:HHC:16065 learned Trial Court during trial, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant, submitted that the informant has no objection in case the petitioner is released on bail. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh 6 2025:HHC:16065 Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 11. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under 7 2025:HHC:16065 Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied 8 2025:HHC:16065 upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 12 This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 13. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner promised to marry the victim and maintained physical relations with her. The victim became pregnant due to this relationship. This version is not supported by the report of the analysis, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner is not the biological father of the product of conception. 15. The victim had initially refused to make any statement against the petitioner and to undergo medical 9 2025:HHC:16065 examination. Silence of the victim for a long time will weigh in favour of the petitioner. 16. The informant had stated in the reply filed by her that she has no objection in case the bail is granted to the petitioner. She has also stated that the parties have decided to marry each other in July, 2026. 17. Keeping in view the material collected by the prosecution, the further detention of the petitioner is not justified. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- 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 in case a charge sheet is presented against him 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, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; 10 2025:HHC:16065 (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. 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th May, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f2 3c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec9393752919 62d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-05-27 12:07:34 KARAN SINGH GULERIA