( 2025:HHC:17736 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 748 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.05.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025 “X” (name withheld to conceal his identity) .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, 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. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) vide F.I.R. No.13 of 2023, dated 31.03.2023, registered at Police Station Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 AB of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “POCSO Act”), 2012. The police arrested the petitioner on 31.03.2023, and he is lodged in District Open Air Jail, Chamba as an under-trial prisoner. The police have filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court, and the matter is listed on 06.06.2025. The statements of 18 witnesses have been recorded, and 19 witnesses are yet to be examined. No case is made out against the petitioner. There is a remote possibility of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner 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 is the petitioner’s daughter. She met the informant on 28.03.2023 at 06:30 pm. The informant asked the victim where she was going alone. She revealed that she was going to her maternal aunt’s house because her father beats and harasses her. The informant told the victim that it was dark and she should not go alone. The informant brought the victim to her home, where she revealed that the petitioner had digitally 3 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) penetrated her on 27.03.2023. The petitioner gagged her when she tried to shout for help. She narrated the incident to her stepmother, who revealed that the petitioner had bolted the door of her room from the outside. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner. As per the date of birth Certificate, the victim was born on 26.03.2012, and she was aged 11 years and 5 days on the date of the incident. The police sent the articles seized by them to the RFSL, and as per the report, human semen was detected on the mattress/khind. The DNA obtained from the mattress/khind matched the DNA of the petitioner and the victim. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses out of whom 18 have been examined, 02 have been given up, 01 witness has passed away, and 04 witnesses are to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 06.06.2025. The petitioner committed a heinous offence. The trial is about to conclude, and releasing the petitioner on bail would send a wrong signal to the society. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 4 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) 4. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2023, and the trial has not been concluded despite the lapse of two years, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The statement of the victim is duly corroborated by the DNA found present in the mattress/khind. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses, and only 04 witnesses are to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 06.06.2025. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. 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 at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 5 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) 26. While considering as to 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, how 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 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] .] 8. 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) 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 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The victim is the daughter of the petitioner. She categorically stated that the petitioner had been harassing her for 06 months before the incident. Her statement is, prima facie, corroborated by the recovery of her DNA and the DNA of the 8 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) petitioner from the mattress/khind. No explanation has been provided for the presence of DNA of the victim and the petitioner on the mattress/khind, therefore, prima-facie, her version has to be accepted as correct that the petitioner has digitally penetrated her and attempted to rape her. The petitioner being the father of the victim was bound to protect her; however, he raped her and violated the trust reposed by the society upon the parents to protect their children. Hence, the submission that the petitioner is, prima facie, involved in the commission of the heinous offence is to be accepted as correct. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 12. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the delay. This submission is not acceptable. The status report shows that only 04 witnesses are to be examined and the matter is listed on 06.06.2025. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses so far; therefore, it cannot be said that there is any delay in the progress of the trial. 13. The petitioner was residing with the victim, and in case of his release on bail, the safety of the victim would be 9 ( 2025:HHC:17736 ) endangered, therefore, he cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 14. No other point was urged. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 05th June, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)