1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.251 of 2026 Date of Decision : 22.05.2026 Deepak Kumar …… Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for an offence punishable under Sections 376D, 363 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the status report. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the incident in the case at hand is stated to have occurred on 02.02.2024. Based on the same, an FIR was registered on 03.02.2024 at the behest of the sister of the victim. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the victim 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is stated to have been put in a car, taken to a secluded location and forcibly sexually assaulted by multiple persons. Insofar as the FIR and the victim’s statement are concerned, the bail petitioner is stated to have been sitting in the front seat next to the driver (Suraj). The State Forensic Science Laboratory reports confirmed human semen on the bail petitioner’s underwear (Ex.7a), penile swab (Ex.7b) and traces of pubic hair (Ex.7d). However, insofar as the DNA report of the petitioner is concerned, the same did not match with the victim’s DNA profiling. While deciding an application for bail, Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. 4. On conclusion of investigation, Challan was filed on 04.04.2024 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, HP. Supplementary Challans were filed on 16.11.2024 and 14.08.2025. There are total 34 prosecution witnesses and out of which no witness has been examined till date. From a perusal of the order-sheets placed on record, it is evident that charge in the case at hand was framed on 19.10.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of the prosecution’s witnesses on 02.01.2025, 11.04.2025, 30.06.2025, 13.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 27.10.2025, 03.01.2026 and 13.03.2026 and now the matter has been posted for recording of prosecution evidence from 8th to 12th June, 2026. On none of the dates till 13.03.2026, even a single statement of prosecution witness was record. Hence, it is evident that trial would not be concluding in the near future. On the aforesaid 3 dates, matter was listed for recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely complainant, father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix. The presence of the aforesaid witnesses has not been secured and the matter is now listed for recording of other prosecution witnesses. The value and worth of trial, wherein, the statements of the prosecutrix and complainant is not recorded reflect the future outcome of the trial. 5. Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just” procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the Accused. 6. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 184 : 2018 SCC onLine SC 478; Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453. 7. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 4 8. From the status report, so filed, it is evident that the petitioner does have one more FIR bearing No.32 of 2024 registered against him under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be presently a resident of Village Lohanji, Post Office Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and is permanent resident of Village Etkari, Tehsil and District Gumbla, Jharkhand. 10. The respondent/State have expressed apprehension regarding him fleeing from the justice and adversely affecting the trial. In order to allay the fear of the respondent/State, petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial. 11. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024, registered at Police Station Dharmpur, District Solan, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 376D, 363 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be forthwith released on bail, 5 subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lac] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this bail order is subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner shall 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; (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; (iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; & (vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. 13. Needless to say that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioner. 14. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 15. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., 6 through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e- prison software. 16. In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 18. A copy of this order be sent to the District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P and the learned trial Court by FASTER. 19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and, in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Bipin Chander Negi) May 22, 2026 (KS) Judge KAMLESH SHARMA Digitally signed by KAMLESH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.22 18:55:33 +0000