2026:HHC:34777 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1481 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Vicky Kumar Chauhan .....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. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Vicky Kumar Chauhan, who is behind the bars since 12.06.2026, 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.23 of 2026, dated 11.06.2026, under Section 64(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2026:HHC:34777 Women Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Nikhil Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 11.06.2026, victim/prosecutrix, aged 39 years (name withheld to protect her identity), lodged a complaint at Women Police Station, Chamba, alleging therein that in the year 2024, she was engaged by Global Sanitation Services under contractor, namely Subodh Kumar Pathak. She alleged that on 15th /16th June 2025, above-named Subodh Pathak called her at Hardaspura for cleaning of his room taken on rent. She alleged that when she reached the room of above-named person, he asked her to remove her clothes and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that when she objected and started weeping, above-named person extended threats that he would throw her out of the job. She further alleged that when she came back to the hospital, person, namely Vicky Chauhan, present bail petitioner, called her into the storeroom and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that -3- 2026:HHC:34777 repeatedly Vicky Chauhan sexually assaulted her under the threat that in case she discloses anything to any person, he would get her removed from the job. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against person, namely Subodh Pathak and present bail petitioner Vicky Chauhan, who are behind bars since 11.06.2026. 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. 4. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates, representing the petitioner, strenuously argued that bail petitioner herein has been falsely implicated at the instance of some union leaders, who had been raising some totally unjustifiable demands. Mr. Kochhar further states that allegation of sexual assault pertains to June, 2025, whereas FIR came to be lodged on 11.06.2026 and no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the FIR. He states that though it is being claimed by the complainant that since she was threatened to be removed from service, she did not lodge the -4- 2026:HHC:34777 FIR, but it is a matter of fact that she is still working in the same company even after the arrest of both the accused named above. He states that otherwise also, the allegations of sexual assault are vague because neither specific date, timing or place of occurrence has been mentioned, rather with a view to pressurize the accused, named in the FIR, they have been falsely implicated and as such, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that though there is delay in lodging the FIR, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that the victim/prosecutrix belongs to a poor strata of society and she on account of constant threat of her being removed from service, could not lodge the FIR well within time. He states that since it is apparent from the statement of the victim/prosecutrix that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted against her wishes by the bail petitioner along -5- 2026:HHC:34777 with another person, namely Subodh Pathak, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail may be rejected. 6. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant i.e. victim- prosecutrix. While adopting the arguments raised by learned Deputy Advocate General, Ms. Sharma submits that accused, named in the FIR, taking undue advantage of innocence and poverty of the victim/prosecutrix, sexually assaulted her against her wishes on many occasions and as such, their prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. She further submits that since victim-prosecutrix is a divorcee having three children and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, coupled with the fact that there was none to support her, she had no option, but to subject herself to the illegal demands of the accused, who are at the helm of affairs of the company where she is working. She states that since accused has committed heinous crime punishable under Section 64(1) of the BNS, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves out rightly rejection. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record, this -6- 2026:HHC:34777 Court finds that victim/prosecutrix in her complaint has alleged that on 15/16.06.2025, she was called by accused Subodh Kumar Pathak to his room for cleaning, but there she was sexually assaulted against her wishes. She further alleged that when she reached hospital for work, present bail petitioner, Vicky, started following her and he ultimately took her to a store room and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. If the complaint is read in its entirety, it suggests that present bail petitioner had been sexually assaulting her on various occasions, but there is no specific mention with regard to date, timing and place. The alleged incident of sexual assault occurred on 15/16.06.2025, but FIR came to be lodged on 11.06.2026 i.e., after one year of the alleged incident. No plausible explanation had been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Though, it came to be vehemently argued by learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel representing the complainant that since victim/prosecutrix was under constant threat of her being removed from service, she kept mum, but this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission made at the behest of victim/prosecutrix. -7- 2026:HHC:34777 8. Bare reading of the status report reveals that at the time of lodging of complaint, complainant was accompanied by three persons, namely Rano Bhat, Sheelo, and Usha, to whom she had allegedly disclosed the entire incident. Person namely, Ms. Usha, who had accompanied victim/prosecutrix to Police Station addressed communication dated 11.07.2026 to the SHO, Police Station, Chamba, stating therein that false FIR has been lodged against the persons, namely Subodh Kumar Pathak and Vicky Kumar by the victim/prosecutrix. She alleged that she was made to accompany victim/prosecutrix to the Police Station on the pretext that after lodging of case against aforesaid persons, they shall receive amount in their EPF accounts. If the aforesaid communication sent by Ms. Usha, is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that victim/prosecutrix was in constant touch with large number of people working in the Sanitation Company, which is managed and controlled by the accused named in the FIR. 9. Though, correctness of averments contained in the aforesaid communication shall be determined by the Court below in totality of evidence led on record by the respective parties, but certainly having taken note of -8- 2026:HHC:34777 inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the fact that victim/prosecutrix is still working in the same company ever after arrest of the accused, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 10. It also emerges from the documents adduced on record that disciplinary proceedings already stood initiated against persons namely Rano, Gulzar Bhat and Usha on account of their alleged indulgence in illegal activities and some of the female workers employed with the company had lodged complaint with the Principal, who subsequently forwarded the matter to the SHO, Police Station, Chamba. 11. Though, learned Deputy Advocate General attempted to contend that petitioner herein, by taking undue advantage of the innocence and poverty of the victim/prosecutrix, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, however having taken note of age of the victim/prosecutrix i.e., 39 years, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of learned Deputy Advocate General, rather having noticed her conduct, which is apparent from her statement, this Court is of the view that she was fully capable of understanding -9- 2026:HHC:34777 the consequences of her being in the company of the person against whom she has levelled serious allegations. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly 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, 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 Deputy 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. 13. 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 -10- 2026:HHC:34777 judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 14. 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 amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 15. 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 -11- 2026:HHC:34777 the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 16. 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. 17. 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 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. -12- 2026:HHC:34777 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 August 18, 2026 (shankar)