2026:HHC:29454 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1100 of 2026 Reserved on : 17.07.2026 Date of Decision: 20.7.2026. Latif Mohammad ….Petitioner Versus State of HP ….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General/State Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 67 of 2026, dated 05.05.2026, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29454 commission of offences punishable under Sections 87, 69, 351(3) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was found missing on 05.05.2026. The informant suspected that the petitioner had taken the victim with him. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The victim has performed a valid Nikah with the petitioner on 05.05.2026 as per Muslim customs. The petitioner and the victim engaged an Advocate, and they filed a joint petition seeking police protection for their lives. The victim and the Investigating Agency concealed the Nikah from the Court. The petitioner and the victim are residents of the same area. The victim had not raised any protest and voluntarily accompanied the petitioner. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was found missing on 05.05.2026. The informant reported the matter to the police, and the police 3 2026:HHC:29454 registered the FIR. The petitioner was also found missing from his home. The police checked the CCTV footage and apprehended the petitioner and the victim at Ludhiana. The victim stated that the petitioner had falsely promised to marry her and maintained physical relations with her. The police arrested the petitioner. The samples have been sent to FSL, and the result is awaited. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had married the petitioner in the presence of Kaazi. They had also put their signatures on the Nikahnama. The victim is major and capable of consenting. The prosecution’s version that the petitioner had made a false promise to marry the victim does not survive after the marriage between the petitioner and the victim. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2026:HHC:29454 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim had specifically stated that she was taken forcibly by the petitioner. The petitioner had maintained a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The allegations in the FIR have to be, prima facie, accepted as correct, and there is nothing on record to show that the marriage was solemnised by the victim with her consent. The offence is heinous, and the punishment is severe; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the reports carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikantis Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) 5 2026:HHC:29454 “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, based on evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing 6 2026:HHC:29454 of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is 7 2026:HHC:29454 established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and 8 2026:HHC:29454 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the 9 2026:HHC:29454 gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report mentions that the petitioner had maintained a physical relationship with the victim after promising to marry her. The petitioner has filed a certificate issued by Moulvi Ummar Farooq regarding the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner has also filed a copy of a petition for issuing a direction to respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 to safeguard the lives and liberty of the present petitioner and the victim. This petition was duly signed by the victim. She had also executed an affidavit stating that she had solemnised the marriage with the petitioner 10 2026:HHC:29454 voluntarily. These documents support the petitioner's version that the petitioner had solemnised a marriage with the victim. Therefore, the very basis of the F.I.R that the petitioner had made a false promise to the victim to marry her does not survive because the marriage was in fact solemnised between the petitioner and the victim. 12. The notice of the bail petition was also issued to the victim. The victim chose not to appear before the Court despite service, which means that she accepts the allegation in the petition to be correct. Thus, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. 13. The status report does not mention that the investigation is continuing, and the petitioner’s custody is required for the investigation. Therefore, the petitioner's custody is not justified. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Una, H.P. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. This means that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his 11 2026:HHC:29454 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 on each and every hearing 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 concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (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. 15. 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. 12 2026:HHC:29454 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Bangarh, District Una, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 20th July, 2026 (Ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: RAVINDER KUMAR Date: 2026-07-20 11:49:22