IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1275 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Lalit 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: Mr. Nitin Rishi, Mr. Shivanshu Attri and Mr. Khem Raj, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. SI Sanjeev Singh, PS Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Lalit Kumar, who is behind the bars since 08.04.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.80/2026, dated 07.04.2026, under Sections 64, 108 & 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. In terms of order dated 15.07.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and SI Sanjeev Singh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 07.04.2026, Complainant Kishore Chand got his statement recorded under Section 173 BNSS, stating therein that deceased Divya Jyoti Saini was her adopted daughter, who has committed suicide by hanging herself. He alleged that at 7:00 PM, she along with his wife and son had gone to cowshed for fetching milk and his adopted daughter Divya Jyoti and daughter-in-law were in the upper floor of the house and when he came back after half an hour, he found that his daughter-in-law was working in the kitchen whereas room of the deceased Divya Jyoti was locked from inside. He alleged that though he attempted to open the door by kicking it, but since it did not open, he opened the same with the help of hammer and found that Divya Jyoti had hanged herself from the fan. Complainant alleged that on 06.04.2026, his deceased daughter had disclosed to him that a boy namely Lalit Kumar i.e. bail-petitioner herein had been troubling her and taken her to Sandly Comfort Hotel, Chamukha. Complainant alleged that above named boy was constantly harassing his daughter, as a result whereof, she committed suicide. During investigation, he also alleged that above-named boy had also sexually assaulted her daughter against her wishes. In the afore background, FIR, as -3- detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. 4. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Nitin Rishi, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, states that petitioner has been falsely implicated because there was no abetment/ instigation, if any, by the petitioner to the deceased, who committed suicide. Mr. Rishi states that though bail-petitioner and the deceased were known to each other since November 2024 and they had been meeting and talking to each other frequently, but there is no evidence suggestive the fact that petitioner herein had ever sexually assaulted the deceased against her wishes. He states that bare perusal of suicide note left behind by the deceased nowhere suggests that she committed suicide on account of alleged constant harassment and mental torture, if any, by the petitioner, rather, her guilty conscience led her to commit suicide. He states that otherwise also, entire story of the prosecution is based upon the statement made by the father of the deceased, who alleged that his deceased daughter had told him that bail-petitioner had been troubling her, but no attempt, if any, ever came to be made by the complainant or the deceased to report the matter to police. He states that though basic ingredients of Section 108 of Bharatiya Nagarik -4- Suraksha Sanhita are totally missing in the case at hand, but even otherwise such fact, if any, can be proved by court below by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He states that since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail- petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail- petitioner behind bars, who otherwise has a large family to support. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of filing of challan in the competent Court of law, 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. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record to suggest the fact that bail-petitioner had been blackmailing the deceased, as a result thereof, she committed suicide. He states that mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the bail-petitioner, which itself suggests that he had been blackmailing the deceased on the pretext of some objectionable material in the mobile phone. While fairly admitting that there is no medical evidence suggestive of the fact that deceased was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, Mr. Chauhan states that since alleged incident of forcible sexual assault was of three days prior to the lodging of FIR, this court may not give much importance to the medical evidence, rather in that regard, statement of the complainant, who happens to be father of -5- the deceased, is sufficient. While referring to the suicide note, Mr. Chauhan submitted that bare perusal of same suggests that deceased was worried with regard to loss of her mobile, which ultimately came to be found from the possession of the bail- petitioner. He states that since there is no explanation rendered on record qua recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the bail-petitioner, it can be safely inferred that bail- petitioner had been troubling/blackmailing the deceased and ultimately, for this reason, she committed suicide. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing parties and perused material available on record, especially suicide note left behind by the deceased, this court finds that there is no mention of the name of the petitioner, rather, bare perusal of suicide note reveals that deceased was upset with herself only on account of some mistakes committed by her in past. It also emerges from the suicide note that deceased had lost her mobile phone and she was praying to God to help her in searching the mobile phone. No doubt, mobile phone of the deceased ultimately came to be recovered from the present bail-petitioner, but there is nothing in the suicide note suggestive of fact that on account of some objectionable material in the mobile phone of the deceased, bail-petitioner had been troubling/ blackmailing her, rather, taking note of chats allegedly exchanged between the deceased and the bail-petitioner. The factum with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the bail petitioner had come to the -6- knowledge of the father of the deceased, who, while cautioning his daughter not to indulge in such activities, also warned her that, in case she failed to mend her ways, he would have to solemnize her marriage. It is apparent from the material adduced on record by prosecution that bail-petitioner, who admittedly is a married person having child, was in relationship with the deceased since November 2024 and since then, they both had been talking and meeting each other. Record further reveals that three days prior to the alleged incident of hanging, deceased and bail-petitioner had gone to hotel named hereinabove, but medical evidence adduced on record nowhere proves allegation of sexual assault. Since specific allegation, if any, of mental harassment at the behest of the bail-petitioner is missing in the suicide note, rather there is no reference of his name, not much importance can be given to the statement of complainant to the effect that his deceased daughter had disclosed to him that present bail-petitioner had been troubling her and had also sexually assaulted the deceased against her wishes. Allegedly aforesaid information was shared by the deceased with her father three days prior to the alleged incident, but interestingly no complaint in that regard ever came to be made by the complainant to the police. 8. To invoke Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the prosecution is under an obligation to prove abetment of the commission of suicide. To constitute abetment, the intention or mens rea of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of -7- suicide is imperative. The absence of any of these essential ingredients would militate against such an indictment. Merely insulting the deceased by using abusive language would not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide, rather, there must be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused, by such acts or by a course of regular harassment, intended to incite the deceased to commit suicide. In cases involving allegations of abetment of suicide and cruelty, it is necessary to establish conduct on the part of the accused which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Similarly, words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion, without intending that the consequence should actually follow, cannot be said to amount to instigation. 9. Having carefully perused suicide note left behind by the deceased, this court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no cogent and convincing evidence available at this stage, suggestive of the fact that the petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Though the case is to be decided by court below in totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, this court sees no reason to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when his guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till -8- the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 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 -9- amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 13. 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. 14. 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, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of -10- concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with 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. 16. 16. 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. 17. 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 application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 18. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the 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 July 30, 2026 (Sunil)