2026:HHC:33816 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1063 of 2026 Reserved on: 06.08.2026 Decided on: 12.08.2026 Raman Thakur …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Vijender Katoch, Kapil Sharma and Shivanshu Attri, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 &2/State: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr Raman Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has -led the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 121 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025, registered at the Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. for the commission of o5ences punishable under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(2), 64, 79, 127(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33816 Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual O5ences Act (POCSO Act). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner Sathu and Gullu took the victim with them in a car forcibly on 15.10.2025. They misbehaved with her and abused her. She disclosed the incident to her father. These allegations are false. The police have completed the investigation and -led the charge sheet before the Court. The statement of the victim has been recorded. The petitioner has clean antecedents, and no FIR was lodged against him. The co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by -ling a status report asserting that the victim came to the Police Station and -led a complaint before the Police stating that she was going to her home on 15.10.2025. The petitioner, Sathu, and Gullu asked her to board their car, as they would drop her. However, she refused; 3 2026:HHC:33816 she was forcibly taken in the car. The petitioner and the co- accused misbehaved with her. She called her father and narrated the incident to him. The police recorded the FIR and investigated the matter. The victim was medically examined. She was advised X-ray, but she refused to undergo the X-ray. The victim made a supplementary statement on 19.10.2025 asserting that she was raped. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The co-accused were found to be minors, and they were released. A charge sheet has been -led before the Court. Statements of 8 witnesses out of 32 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been recorded. Hence, the status report. 4. The notice of the petition was also issued to the victim, and she -led written objections asserting that the petitioner and the co-accused had forcibly dragged her in their vehicle and thereafter had raped her. The allegations against the petitioner are heinous and a5ect the minor children. Therefore, the petitioner should not be released on bail. 5. I have heard M/s Vijender Katoch, Kapil Sharma and Shivanshu Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 4 2026:HHC:33816 2/State and Mr Raman Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had not complained of rape in her written complaint and the statements made to the learned Magistrate and the Medical OBcer. Subsequently, she improved upon her version and made the allegation of rape, which is not supported by the medical evidence. The statement of the victim has been recorded, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State submitted that the victim is a minor; hence, she could not disclose the commission of rape at the earliest. Subsequently, she regained her composure and disclosed the commission of rape to the learned Magistrate and the police. The o5ence alleged against the petitioner is heinous; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:33816 8. Mr Raman Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the victim was a minor. She was forcibly taken in the car to a hotel where she was raped. The o5ence shows moral turpitude and adversely a5ects the safety of the minors. No leniency should be shown to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. 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 Gudikanti 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) “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 con-rmed, also bears upon the issue. 6 2026:HHC:33816 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 $nd whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious o%ences 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 in&ict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of 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 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 7 2026:HHC:33816 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 o%ence 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 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. 8 2026:HHC:33816 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 su5er 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 o%ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or &eeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o%ence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in&uenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 9 2026:HHC:33816 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 o%ence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 11. 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 10 2026:HHC:33816 gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the o5ence 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 Neeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating o5ences 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 o5ence 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….” 12. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The victim had not made any allegation of rape in her written complaint. Her statement was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 16.10.2025, in which she had not made any allegation of rape. Subsequently, she was produced before the Medical OBcer on 16.10.2025; before him, she speci-cally denied any sexual abuse. 14. The victim subsequently made a supplementary statement in which allegations of rape were made. Her statement was recorded before the learned Additional Chief 11 2026:HHC:33816 Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in which he reiterated the allegations of rape. 15. The status report also mentions that the samples were sent to RFSL Mandi. However, no semen was found in the samples collected from the victim and the petitioner. 16. The petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2025. The status report mentions that the matter is pending for trial before the Court. Statements of 8 witnesses had been recorded, and the matter was listed for 29/30.07.2026. Therefore, the statements of the victim and other witnesses have been recorded, and there is no apprehension of the petitioner inNuencing the witnesses. 17. The petitioner has remained in custody for about 1 year and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him further in custody. Hence, considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that initially no complaint of rape was made and no semen was found in the samples collected by the police, and that the statements of prosecution witnesses have been recorded and there is no chance of the petitioner inNuencing the witnesses, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 12 2026:HHC:33816 18. In view of the above, the petition -led by the petitioner is allowed, and he is ordered to be released on bail, in FIR No. 121 of 2025, dated 16.10.2025 registered at P.S. Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P, subject to his furnishing bail bond 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 in&uence 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 $ve days from the date of the change. 19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to -le a petition for cancellation of the bail. 13 2026:HHC:33816 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of District Jail Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th August, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.08.12 13:29:41 +0000