2026:HHC:8470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 342 of 2026 Date of Decision:23.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Manoj Kumar, who is behind the bars since 26.10.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.335 of 2025, dated 26.10.2025, under Sections 64, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 67 & 67(A) of the I.T Act, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Ajay 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:8470 2 Kumar has come present with the record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 26.10.2025, complainant, namely Rajesh Kumar, who happens to be husband of the victim/prosecutrix, lodged a complaint at police Station, as detailed hereinabove, alleging therein that his neighbour, namely Manoj Kumar, petitioner herein, who is resident of Aligarh (UP), had sent obscene videos and photographs of his wife on his mobile number as well as numbers of his relatives. He alleged that he inquired about the photographs and videos from his wife i.e. victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), she disclosed that three months prior above named Manoj Kumar had administered sleeping pills to her and thereafter committed sexual assault. He alleged that his wife disclosed that bail petitioner had recorded obscene videos and photographs of alleged incident. He alleged that on the pretext of making obscene videos and photographs viral, petitioner had been blackmailing his wife. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged on 26.10.2025 and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 2026:HHC:8470 3 4. While fairly admitting factum of filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner first administered sleeping pills to the victim/prosecutrix and thereafter subjected her to sexual assault against her wishes. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that obscene videos and photographs allegedly recorded by the petitioner have been recovered from his mobile and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. He states that since petitioner is resident of State of UP, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that event he may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm the victim/ prosecutrix, whose statement is yet to be recorded in competent court of law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim/prosecutrix, who is a major, aged about 25 years, alleged that incident of sexual assault against her wishes had happened three 2026:HHC:8470 4 months prior to lodging of the FIR. There is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua delay in lodging the FIR. Though, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that victim/prosecutrix was unable to disclose such facts to her family members or police on account of threats extended to her by the bail petitioner, but aforesaid argument submitted by learned Additional Advocate General does not appear to be plausible for the reason that FIR against the bail petitioner never came to be lodged at the behest of the victim/prosecutrix, rather same came to be lodged by her husband, who alleged that on the occasion of Karva Chauth, bail petitioner had sent obscene videos and photographs of his wife to him as well as to his relatives. It is only after receipt and circulation of such photographs and videos, factum with regard to forcible sexual assault of wife of the petitioner came to afore. Most importantly, victim/prosecutrix after registration of the FIR, refused to undergo medical examination. As per statement of the victim/prosecutrix, alleged incident of sexual assault was committed by the bail petitioner after administering sleeping pills to her, but there is no explanation rendered on record that what prevented victim/prosecutrix to report the matter, at first instance, to her husband or other family members or to the police, rather as per own statement of the victim/prosecutrix, bail petitioner after alleged recording of videos and photographs kept on 2026:HHC:8470 5 blackmailing her, but no complaint whatsoever ever came to be lodged in that regard by the victim/prosecutrix. 6. Interestingly, victim/prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 Cr.P.C by learned Judicial Magistrate, gave all together different version. She stated that seven months back bail petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She nowhere stated that bail petitioner administered sleeping pills to her and clicked photographs. There is no specific mention, if any, with regard to blackmailing of her at the hands of the bail petitioner. 7. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by learned court below in totality of facts and evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having taken note of aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his /her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period during the trial, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 2026:HHC:8470 6 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 2026:HHC:8470 7 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 2026:HHC:8470 8 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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. 11. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, 2026:HHC:8470 9 punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 13. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 2026:HHC:8470 10 16. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 23,2026 (shankar)