IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 203 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukhwinder Singh ...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. Sunny Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 12.02.2026, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 126 of 2025, dated 06.10.2025, under Sections 69, 351(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station, Damtal, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that pursuant to order dated 12.02.2026, petitioner has already joined the investigation and at this stage, nothing remains to be recovered from him. 2. Mr. Sunny Rawat, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that since petitioner has already joined 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him, order dated 12.02.2026, whereby interim bail was granted to the petitioner, may be made absolute. While referring to the status report, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no case much less under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, is made out against the petitioner, because nothing happened against the wishes of the victim/prosecutrix, who is 42 years old lady. He states that alleged incident of sexual assault against the wishes of the victim/ prosecutrix happened on 6th August, 2025, whereas FIR came to be lodged on 06.10.2025 i.e. after two months and there is no explanation qua the delay in lodging the FIR. He states that petitioner is local resident of the area and shall remain available for trial as well as investigation as and when called by the Investigating Agency. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by the petitioner in terms of order dated 12.02.2026, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner has joined investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Learned Additional Advocate General states that in past also, three criminal cases stand registered against the petitioner and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to 3 enlarge him on bail, because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the victim/prosecutrix, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the competent court of law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that alleged first incident of sexual assault happened on 6th August, 2025, but at that time no complaint was ever filed by the victim/prosecutrix, who is 42 years old, rather after aforesaid date, she kept on meeting with the petitioner, with whom she wanted to solemnize marriage. It is only after the alleged refusal of the bail petitioner to marry victim/prosecutrix, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner as well as co-accused Sonu Kumar. As per the complainant, petitioner had made her objectionable video and he circulated the same to co-accused Sonu Kumar, who under the strength of the same also started compelling victim/prosecutrix to develop physical relationship with him. Investigation nowhere suggests that obscene photograph and video, if any, made by the petitioner were ever recovered from his mobile. 5. Though, case at hand is to be considered and decided by learned court below in totality of facts and evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having taken note of aforesaid 4 glaring aspects of the matter, coupled with the fact that bail petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him, this Court sees no reason to let bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, conclusion whereof, may take considerable time. 6. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his /her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period during the trial, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court 5 further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear 6 of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 8. 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. 9. 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 7 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. 10. 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. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 12.02.2026 passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to petitioner’s furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with one local surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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; 8 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 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. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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. 13. 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 bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 07, 2026 (shankar)