Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16453 (HP)

XYZ v. State of H. P.

2026-04-09

Virender Singh

body2026
Judgment : Virender Singh, J. The prosecutrix ‘X’ has filed the present application, under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2, by this Court, vide order dated 20.5.2025, in Cr.M.P.(M) No.593 of 2025. 2. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she had lodged the complaint against respondent No. 2, that she was sexually exploited and raped by respondent No. 2, upon which FIR No. 7 of 2025, dated 16.3.2025 was registered against respondent No. 2, under Sections 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police Station, Solan, H.P. 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 had approached this Court by way of Cr. M.P.(M) No. 593 of 2025, which was allowed by this Court, on 20.5.2025, by passing the following order. Paras 29 and 30 of the order are reproduced as under: “29. In view of discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for the relief, as claimed in the application. Consequently, interim order, dated 20.03.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 30. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so 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 the appropriate application; 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) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.” 4. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is very clever person and after getting relief from this Court, he had started threatening the applicant directly and indirectly, for not continuing with the criminal case. Not only this, he has involved his relatives and friends to achieve the said goal, i.e. pressurizing the victim not to pursue the matter and the relatives have also started pressurizing the applicant to enter into the compromise with respondent No. 2. 5. According to applicant, recently, respondent No.2 had forwarded a request to her on Instagram app, but the same was not accepted by her. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that respondent No. 2 has violated the terms and conditions of the bail application, imposed vide order dated 20.5.2025. 6. In this regard, the applicant has filed a complaint against the accused, however, according to her, no action has been taken by the police, till date. 7. On the basis of above facts, the complainant has further pleaded that she is already suffering stigma in the society and also facing mental agony and it is very difficult for her to keep herself and her newly born baby in safe condition. 8 The applicant is apprehending that respondent No. 2 may coerce her, as well as, her witnesses. As such, a prayer has been made to cancel the bail, granted to respondent No. 2, by this Court. 9. When, put to notice, the Police filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 16.3.2025, the prosecutrix moved a complaint, stating therein, that she was physically exploited by accused (respondent No. 2), on the pretext of marriage. Due to the act of the accused (respondent No. 2), complainant got pregnant, in the month of September, 2024. The accused (respondent No. 2) had transferred a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to get the fetus aborted. Respondent No. 2 refused to marry the applicant and also threatened to kill her. When, the prosecutrix contacted the family members of respondent No. 2, they had also refused to solemnize marriage of the prosecutrix with respondent No. 2. 9.1. On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against respondent No. 2, upon which, Police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. When, the prosecutrix contacted the family members of respondent No. 2, they had also refused to solemnize marriage of the prosecutrix with respondent No. 2. 9.1. On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against respondent No. 2, upon which, Police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 9.2 Thereafter, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 (3) of BNSS was recorded, disclosing therein that respondent No. 2 was their tenant and on assurance of solemnizing marriage with her, he made physical relations with her, forcefully, on number of occasions, upon which, the prosecutrix was medico legally examined in the Regional Hospital, Solan, and physical evidence was collected. As per the medical examination, the prosecutrix was found to be carrying fetus of 25 weeks. Other codal formalities were completed and respondent No. 2 was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 10. Respondent No. 2 also filed reply to the present application, denying the allegations, which have been levelled against him. He has averred that the prosecutrix is bent upon to harass him, on one pretext or the other. She is also stated to have filed, petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 BNSS), before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, which is fixed for 28.2.2026. 10. Denying the allegations with regard to alleged threat, as well as, alleged violation of terms and conditions of the bail, he has prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed. 11. In the subsequent status report, filed by the Police, on 5.3.2026, it has been mentioned that the prosecutrix had named one Gunjan in her complaint, who insisted the complainant to marry Vikram (respondent No. 2). Consequently, said Gunjan was also inquired, who disclosed that w.e.f. 2024 to April, 2025, she was neighbour of complainant, and both of them are good friends. Gunjan and the applicant remained in contact with each other, on phone. She is also aware about the case, which was registered against respondent No. 2 by the complainant. Complainant used to forward the photographs of her son to Gunjan, upon which, Gunjan allegedly forwarded an message to the complainant that as she is having child out of the said relationship now, both of them should marry each other. She has not asked Vikram or Ashish to make a call or message to the complainant. Complainant used to forward the photographs of her son to Gunjan, upon which, Gunjan allegedly forwarded an message to the complainant that as she is having child out of the said relationship now, both of them should marry each other. She has not asked Vikram or Ashish to make a call or message to the complainant. Since, the complainant has also made allegations against the paternal aunt of Vikram (bua) by alleging that she has made a missed call on the mobile phone of her father, from mobile No. 78075-88670, the said lady was contacted, who has disclosed that she is suffering from chronic ailment and unable to move and she does not remember whether she had made a missed call to the father of the complainant. 12. Respondent No. 2, alongwith reply has also annexed the copy of the petition, filed under Section 144 of BNSS, as well as, the complaint allegedly made by the applicant, through her counsel, to the employer of respondent No. 2. 13. It is not in dispute that when, respondent No. 2 had apprehended his arrest in the above case, he had approached this Court by way of Cr. M.P. (M) No. 593 of 2025, under Section 482 of BNSS, which was allowed, on 20.5.2025, and the complainant has also been impleaded, as respondent in the said case. 14. In this case, the applicant has moved the complaint to the Police against respondent No. 2, who was inquired by the Police, and as per the status report, filed on 5.3.2026, nothing material was found in the said complaint. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana’, reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order, directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Relevant paragraph 4 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:- “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Relevant paragraph 4 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:- “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 16. In another case titled as ‘Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 66, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the bail can be cancelled, if material(s), on which, bail is granted is/are substantially irrelevant. Relevant Paragraphs 25 to 27 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:- “25. The perversity as highlighted in Puran’s case (supra) can also flow from the fact that as noted above, irrelevant materials have been taken into con- sideration adding vulnerability to the order granting bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a substan- tial nature and not of a trivial nature. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin had shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have been con- sidered. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin had shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have been con- sidered. By way of illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was a hardened crim- inal. That certainly is not a factor which can be taken into account. 26. Another significant factor which was highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. The accused was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam Singh and Jai Singh. The first named Abdul Rehman had lodged the FIR. It is pointed out from the General Diary in respect of entry on 26.11.2005 that accused Dinesh was present. In FIR No.CR-I 5/2005 also the presence of Dinesh has been noted. The relevance of these fac- tors does not appear to have been noticed by the High Court. In other words, relevant materials were kept out of consideration. Once it is concluded that bail was granted on untenable grounds, the plea of absence of supervening circumstances has no leg to stand. 27. We have only highlighted the above aspects to show that irrelevant materials have been taken into account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration. That being so, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnera- ble. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made are only to decide the question of grant of bail and shall not be treated to be expression of any opinion on merits. The case relating to acceptability or other- wise of the evidence is the subject matter for the trial Court.” 17. The appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made are only to decide the question of grant of bail and shall not be treated to be expression of any opinion on merits. The case relating to acceptability or other- wise of the evidence is the subject matter for the trial Court.” 17. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the applicant is not able to make out a case for cancellation of bail, as even in the complaint moved by the applicant to the Police, nothing substantive was found, on inquiry. 18. The present case is a classic case of complex human relationship, as the applicant, on one hand, is seeking cancellation of bail, and on the other hand, has filed petition under Section 144 of the BNSS, for seeking maintenance from respondent No. 2. She has sought maintenance for herself, as well as, her minor son. 19. Not only this, she has also filed the complaint against respondent No. 2, through her counsel, before the employer of respondent No. 2 to terminate his services. Copy of the same has been placed on record by respondent No.2. In such situation, the stand of respondent No. 2, qua the fact that the applicant is hell bent to harass and humiliate him, cannot be brushed aside and cannot be said to be unfounded. 20. In view of above, the applicant is not able to make out a case, in her favour, for cancellation of bail, which has been granted to respondent No. 2, that too, after hearing learned Addl. Advocate General, as well as, the counsel, representing the applicant. 21. Consequently, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed.