Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 5.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
2025:HHC:27447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1697 of 2025
Reserved on: 5.8.2025
Date of Decision: 14.8.2025.
Ajay 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. Nishant Khidtta, Legal Aid
Counsel.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular in FIR No. 39 of 2024, dated 9.12.2024,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Section 64 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section
6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), at
Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. As
per the prosecution case, the petitioner committed penetrative
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:27447
sexual assault on the child victim. The petitioner was not named
in the FIR and was arrayed as an accused during the
investigation. The petitioner is innocent, and there is nothing to
connect him with the commission of crime. The petitioner
belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society.
There is no likelihood of his absconding. He would abide by the
terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the
petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police
stating that the victim, aged 13 years, complained of a
stomachache on 9.12.2024. The informant took her to the Civil
Hospital, where the Doctor disclosed that the victim was
pregnant. She disclosed that the juvenile had maintained sexual
relations with her, due to which she became pregnant. The
police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The
dates of birth of the victim and the juvenile were found to be
06.04.2011 and 8.11.2007, respectively. The pregnancy was
medically terminated. The victim made a supplementary
statement that the petitioner had also maintained sexual
relations with her. The fetus was sent to FSL, Junga, and as per
3
2025:HHC:27447
the report of analysis, the DNA Profile obtained from the blood
of the petitioner was not consistent with his being the biological
father of the aborted fetus. The petitioner had raped and
impregnated the minor, which is a serious offence. The charge
sheet was prepared and filed before the learned POCSO Court,
Dharamshala. The petitioner had raped and impregnated the
minor girl, which is a serious offence. The petitioner would
intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the
status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned Legal Aid
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for
the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he
was falsely implicated. The victim had not named the petitioner
at the first instance, but she named him subsequently. The DNA
profiling of the aborted fetus did not match the DNA profile of
the petitioner, as per the report of analysis. Thus, there is no
corroboration of the statement of the victim, at this stage that
the petitioner had raped her. The petitioner is a permanent
4
2025:HHC:27447
resident of District Chamba, H.P., and he would abide by the
terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he
prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be
released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Inder Kumar alias Bunty Vs. State of H.P.
Cr.MP(M) No. 1519 of 2023, decided on 14.8.2023 in support of his
submission.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had
raped and impregnated a minor girl. The offence alleged against
the petitioner is heinous. The petitioner can intimidate the
witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, 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 at page
783: –
5
2025:HHC:27447
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to 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
Yadav 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
6
2025:HHC:27447Lokhandwalla 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
decisions 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
7
2025:HHC:27447the case do not warrant such an 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
circumstances 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.
8
2025:HHC:27447
11. The status report shows that the victim initially
named the juvenile as the person who had impregnated her.
Subsequently, she named the petitioner. The police also sent the
aborted fetus of the victim to FSL, and as per the report of
analysis, the DNA obtained from the aborted fetus did not match
the DNA of the petitioner. This report does not corroborate the
victim’s version that the petitioner had impregnated her.
12. In Inder Kumar (supra), a similar situation arose, and
the DNA report did not connect the accused to the fetus. It was
held that, prima facie, the report was insufficient to detain the
accused in custody.
13. In the present case also, the petitioner cannot be
detained in custody when the report of analysis does not
corroborate the victim’s version that the petitioner had
impregnated her.
14. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent
resident of District Chamba, HP. This was not suggested to be
incorrect in the status report. Hence, the plea of the petitioner
has to be accepted as correct that he has roots in the society and
he is not likely to abscond if released on bail.
9
2025:HHC:27447
15. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate
the witnesses in case of his release on bail; however, this is
merely an apprehension and not sufficient to justify the pre-
trial detention of the petitioner, as the apprehension can be
removed by imposing conditions.
16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioner 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 on each and
every hearing 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
SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and
the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to
the Court; and
(V) 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
10
2025:HHC:27447number 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 expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to
file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai
District and Open-Air Jail, Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP
and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding
the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the case’s merits.
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, the
same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
14th August 2025
(Chander)
Digitally signed by
CHANDER CHANDER SHEKHAR
SHEKHAR Date: 2025.08.14
14:23:17 +0530