Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 27.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 April, 2025
2025:HHC:8675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 482 of 2025
Reserved on: 27.03.2025
Date of Decision: 02.04.2025
Gaurav Kumar …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma,
Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested vide F.I.R. No. 37 of 2025, dated 13.02.2025, registered
at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh,
for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64,
69, 352, and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The victim was the petitioner’s tenant. She filed a civil suit,
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:8675
which was compromised in January 2025. The present complaint
was filed on 13.02.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was
falsely implicated. Petitioner is a permanent resident of District
Solan, H.P. There is no chance of his absconding. He would join
the investigation and also abide by all the terms and conditions
which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police
asserting that the petitioner had told her that he was divorcing
his wife. He liked the victim and wanted to marry her. He also
introduced the victim to his mother. The victim was ready to
marry the petitioner. The petitioner maintained physical
relationship with the victim from September 2002 to October
2024. She became pregnant in February 2024 and August 2024,
but she was forced to abort the fetus. She opened a shop in the
petitioner’s building and agreed to pay monthly rent @ ₹1500/-
to the petitioner. The petitioner’s wife gave beating to the
victim on 15th November, and thereafter the victim stopped
talking to the petitioner. The petitioner disconnected the
electricity connection on 30th December 2024 due to which shop
remain closed. The petitioner has the victim’s photographs, and
3
2025:HHC:8675
he is defaming her. He refused to marry her. The police
registered the F.I.R., conducted the investigation, and filed a
charge sheet. The matter was listed for consideration on charge
on 28.02.2025. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in
case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
falsely implicated. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not show that
any false statement was made by the petitioner regarding the
marital status. The victim had filed a civil suit against the
petitioner, which was compromised. The victim filed the F.I.R. to
prevent her eviction. Hence, he prayed that the present petition
be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is
involved in a heinous crime. He would intimidate the witnesses
4
2025:HHC:8675
in case of his release on bail. He prayed that the present petition
be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC
768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under
page 783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in
a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court
must consider relevant factors like the nature of the
accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of
U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru
5
2025:HHC:8675Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as
under:-
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly
related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered
to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for
the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a)
CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the
need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the
presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the
accused is not misused to impede the investigation,
overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the
accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not
misused to impede the investigation, overawe the
witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several
6
2025:HHC:8675decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the
conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in
the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis
supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the
Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
observed in the following terms:–
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power
on a court of law to impose any condition that it
chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as
a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible
in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of
the view that the present facts and circumstances of
the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be
imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
7
2025:HHC:8675circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and
larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as
a recovery agent to realise the dues of the
complainant, and that too, without any trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. It was specifically mentioned in the complaint made
to the police that the petitioner disclosed that he was married,
hence, there was no misrepresentation regarding the marital
status of the petitioner.
12. The victim stated in F.I.R. that the petitioner
maintained sexual relations with her w.e.f. September, 2002 till
October, 2024. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628Jothiragawan v.
State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628 that maintaining sexual relations
with the victim does not amount to rape. It was observed:
“12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim
before the Police, both the First Information Statement
and that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the
sexual relationship admitted by both parties was without
8
2025:HHC:8675the consent of the victim. That they were closely related
and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The
allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim
to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which, even
as per the victim’s statement, was repeated thrice in the
same manner when she willingly accompanied the
accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically
stated that after the first incident and the second
incident, she was mentally upset, but that did not caution
her from again accompanying the accused to hotel
rooms.”
13. In the present case also the victim was aware of the
marital status of the petitioner but still she engaged in a sexual
relationship with him.
14. The victim filed a civil suit against the petitioner,
stating that she was a tenant of the petitioner. She stated before
the Court that she would vacate the premises and would not
make any false allegations against the present petitioner. This
statement was recorded on 17.01.2025, and the complaint was
made to the police on 13.02.2025. All these circumstances make
it difficult to place reliance upon the prosecution’s version
regarding the rape of the victim.
15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent
resident of District Solan, which was not stated to be incorrect
9
2025:HHC:8675
by the police in the status report. It means that the petitioner
has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding.
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, will abide by the
following terms and conditions: –
i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will
he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial 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 concerned Police
Station and the Court.
(iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the
Court; and
(v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not
dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation
to the facts of the case in hand.
(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.
10
2025:HHC:8675
17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a
petition for cancellation of the bail.
18. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case
19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan,
District Solan, H.P and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
20. 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,
same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
2 April, 2025
nd
Judge
(ravinder)
Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA
Date: 2025.04.02 15:00:08 IST
[ad_1]
Source link