2026:HHC:39208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 932 of 2026 Reserved on: 09.09.2026. Decided on: 15.09.2026 Budh Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Tejasvi Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the victim/respondent No.2 : Ms Hem Kanta Kaushal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 60 of 2026 dated 19.05.2026 registered at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, HP for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39208 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution case, the victim's husband lodged a missing report on 15.05.2026 that the victim was missing from her home. The police traced the victim, who revealed that she had no grievance from any person. Subsequently, she made a complaint against the petitioner, and the police registered an FIR No. 60 of 2026. The police are seeking to arrest the petitioner. The victim had herself left her matrimonial home and stated that she had no grievance with any person. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. He has roots in the society, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police that the petitioner had repeatedly raped her for 3-4 years. He had also threatened her, and she could not narrate the incident to any person. She left the home, and her husband lodged a missing report. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner joined the investigation, and his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner had committed a 3 2026:HHC:39208 heinous crime, and he should not be released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Tejasvi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 1/State and Ms Hem Kanta Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/victim. 5. Mr Tejasvi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim is major and married. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 1/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had repeatedly raped the victim. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 2026:HHC:39208 7. Ms Hem Kanta Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/victim adopted the submissions of Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 1/State and submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly raped the victim and she was forced to leave her matrimonial home to escape from the petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and severely punishable. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, an arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and 5 2026:HHC:39208 other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 10. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 11. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation 6 2026:HHC:39208 while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 12. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The status report mentions that the petitioner was maintaining a sexual relationship with the victim for 3-4 years. However, the victim never revealed the incident to any person. The victim had left her matrimonial home, and a missing report was lodged on 15.05.2026. The police had found the victim on 16.05.2026. However, no report was lodged by the victim on the date of her recovery; rather, the complaint was made by her on 19.05.2026 after the lapse of 3 days. 7 2026:HHC:39208 14. The allegations against the petitioner are vague and do not mention any time, date or place. The victim was subjected to medical examination and no injury was found on her person. The police seized the material objects, but no incriminating substance was found in them. Therefore, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime at this stage. 15. The status report mentions that the petitioner had joined the investigation and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 25.05.2026 is made absolute subject to the following conditions: - i) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the police authorities/competent authorities. ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments in the event of presentation of challan. (iv) 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 concerned Police Station and the Court. 8 2026:HHC:39208 (v) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (vi) 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 five days from the date of the change. 17. 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 the Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th September, 2026 (Nikita)