2026:HHC:31678 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1277 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Subhodh Kumar Pathak ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .…....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Ms. Swati Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Kochhar and Mr. Ajitesh Kochhar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner namely Subodh Kumar Pathak, who is behind the bars since 11.6.2026, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 23 of 2026 dated 11.06.2026 registered at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’). 2026:HHC:31678 2 2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Nikhil Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of record as well as status report reveals that on 11.06.2026, victim prosecutrix (aged 39 years old), lodged a complaint at afore Police Station, alleging therein that since 2024, she had been working in a Global Sanitation Company, which has taken a contract of sanitation at Medical College, Chamba. She alleged that on 15/16.6.2025, Contractor- cum-Proprietor of the company took her to his rented room on the pretext that she has to clean the room, but when she reached the room, above named person closed the door and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that when she started crying, aforesaid person threatened her to remove from her job. She alleged that when she came to the hospital for work, person namely Vicky Chauhan, who was also working in the same company, also sexually assaulted her against her wishes on many occasions. Complainant alleged that she kept mum for the reason that both aforesaid persons had threatened her to remove from the job, but today she informed the whole incident to President of Union, who asked her to report the matter to the police. Since police has completed the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, 2026:HHC:31678 3 he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Shri Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel representing the bail petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the victim- prosecutrix on the askance of Union leaders, against whom disciplinary proceedings are already pending. He states that otherwise also, no explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in lodging of FIR and there is no medical evidence adduced on record to substantiate allegation of the victim prosecutrix. He states that since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial coupled with the fact that there is no cogent and convincing material available on record to prove guilt of the bail petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars, rather such act, if any would amount to pre-trial conviction, which is not permissible under law. 5. While fairly admitting factum of completion of investigation, 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. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record to suggest that bail petitioner taking undue advantage 2026:HHC:31678 4 of innocence and poverty of the victim prosecutrix, not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also extended threats. He states that it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may also cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix, who is yet to depose before the learned trial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that victim prosecutrix, who is major, failed to lodge complaint for approximately one year. As per her statement, alleged incident had happened on 15/16.6.2025, but FIR came to be filed on 11.6.2026. No plausible explanation has been given on record for delay in filing the FIR save and except that victim-prosecutrix was under threat of losing her job. This court finds that at the time of lodging FIR, victim prosecutrix was accompanied by Rano Bhatt, Sheelo and Usha against whom disciplinary proceedings had been already initiated by the company and as such, possibility of false implication of present bail petitioner also cannot be ruled out. It is not in dispute, rather stands admitted by the Investigating Officer present in the Court that victim prosecutrix is still working in the same company, which is owned by present bail petitioner. Moreover, this court finds that no evidence in the 2026:HHC:31678 5 shape of MLC, if any, has been adduced on record by the investigating agency to substantiate the allegation of victim prosecutrix. No doubt, mere statement of victim prosecutrix in such like cases is sufficient to conclude guilt of the accused, but delay in lodging FIR coupled with the fact that victim prosecutrix is still working in the same company, makes story of the prosecution, somewhat doubtful. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 7004 of 2025), titled as Kunal Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal and Ors, relevant paras whereof read as under: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the definition of ‘Rape’ and would argue that the consent given by the minor is no consent and it would still be a rape. In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. She also categorically states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant. This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108). 2026:HHC:31678 6 Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused.” 7. Having regard to age of the victim prosecutrix, this court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that bail petitioner took undue advantage of innocence and poverty of the victim prosecutrix, rather material adduced on record suggests that bail petitioner was fully capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of the bail petitioner. 8. Though case at hand to be decided by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence collected on record, but keeping in mind aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail during trial, especially when his guilt is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 9. Repeatedly, it has been held that one is deemed to be innocent till 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. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, 2026:HHC:31678 7 can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. 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 2026:HHC:31678 8 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. 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. 2026:HHC:31678 9 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the 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 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. 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. 2026:HHC:31678 10 18. The bail 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. July 31, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge