Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mandeep vs . State Of H.P. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Mandeep Vs. State of H.P.
CrMP(M) No.247 of 2025
06.03.2025 Present: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Ankit
Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate
General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy
Advocate General for the respondent.
None for the complainant.
Notice, issued to the complainant/prosecutrix,
on 27.02.2025, has been received back after due
service. However, despite service, no one has put
appearance, on her behalf. Further wait is not
justifiable.
Arguments heard.
The present application has been allowed vide
separate judgment of the even date.
March 06, 2025 ( Virender Singh )
(Gaurav Thakur) Judge
2 2025:HHC:5041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP(M) No.247 of 2025
Decided on : 06.03.2025
Mandeep ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, vice
Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General with Ms. Ranjana
Patial, Deputy Advocates General.
None for the complainant.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Applicant-Mandeep has filed the present
application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’),
with a prayer to release him, on bail, during the pendency
of the trial, in case FIR No.45 of 2024, dated 04.12.2024,
registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘), with Women Police
Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
3 2025:HHC:5041
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent
person and has falsely been implicated, in the present
case, at the instance of the prosecutrix.
3. The applicant has given his age as 19 years and
age of the complainant as 21 years.
4. As per the applicant, he has been harassed by
the complainant to extort money from him and when, he
showed his unwillingness to pay the same, the present
case has been registered.
5. Applicant is stated to be the sole bread-earner
of his family and he is presently in judicial custody.
6. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried
his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District
Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was
dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2025.
7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the
applicant has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the
applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in
case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency
of the trial.
4 2025:HHC:5041
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the application.
9. When, put to notice, the police has filed
the status report disclosing therein, that on 04.12.2024,
zero FIR was received from Women Police Station, Mandi.
The said FIR has been registered on the fact that the
prosecutrix, along with her friend, appeared before the
police and made a complaint, mentioning therein that she
is the resident of Village ‘X’, Uttar Pradesh. Her parents
had expired, when, she was minor and she has been
brought up by her maternal aunt (Masi). She has studied
up to VIII Class.
10. As per further contents of the complaint, made
by the prosecutrix, after attaining the age of 18 years, she
has started working in a pharmaceutical company at
Baddi, where, she met with Mandeep (applicant), who was
also working there. After some time, Mandeep (applicant)
has started residing with prosecutrix in her rented
accommodation, on the pretext that after some time, he
will marry her. On the pretext of marriage, applicant had
raped her for the first time in the month of January, 2024.
Thereafter, they stayed together, till February, 2024 and
5 2025:HHC:5041
after that, in the month of March, 2024, he took her to his
native place at Bhanvla.
11. As per the complaint, Mandeep (applicant) had
also apprised his family members about his relationship
with prosecutrix and she stayed there for about 3 months
and during that period, whenever, the prosecutrix
requested the mother of the applicant to perform their
marriage, then, she started making excuses on the one
pretext or the other. Mandeep (applicant) got her
signatures over certain documents on the pretext that
these are the documents of their marriage. Thereafter, the
prosecutrix was sent back to her parents’ house at Uttar
Pradesh, where, she remained for about 2 months and
then, came back to Barotiwala. When, Mandeep (applicant)
had stopped attending her calls, then, she apprised the
maternal uncle of the applicant about this fact and
Mandeep (applicant) had blocked her number.
12. It is the further case of the complainant that
thereafter, she had gone to Sarkaghat, at the instance of
her maternal uncle. On 01.12.2024, Mandeep (applicant)
came along with his mother to her maternal uncle’s shop,
where, Mandeep (applicant) had given a push to her and
6 2025:HHC:5041
snatched her phone. Subsequently, prosecutrix had made
a complaint to Women Police Station, Mandi. In Women
Police Station, Mandi, the complainant came to know
about the fact that Mandeep (applicant) had not
solemnized any marriage with her and despite her
insistence, now, Mandeep (applicant) has refused to marry
her.
13. Lastly, it has been mentioned in the complaint
that the prosecutrix was raped by Mandeep (applicant) on
the pretext of solemnizing marriage with her. As such, she
has prayed that the action be taken against the applicant.
14. On the basis of zero FIR, the present FIR, under
Section 376 of IPC, was registered.
15. On 05.12.2024, the prosecutrix was produced
before CHC, Baddi, where, she was medico legally
examined and physical evidence, so collected, was sent to
SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis. The statement of the
prosecutrix, under Section 183 of BNSS, was got recorded,
by producing her before the Court. Spot was visited and
spot map was prepared.
16. On 21.12.2024, the applicant was arrested and
was also medico legally examined at CHC, Baddi. After
7 2025:HHC:5041
receiving the DNA report, the police filed the charge-sheet
against the applicant on 24.01.2025, before the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli,
District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial
Court’).
17. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the application.
18. Heard.
19. In the present case, investigation is complete
and the police has submitted the challan, in the competent
Court of law (learned trial Court). The applicant is a young
man of 19 years and in case, he is permitted to remain in
judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period, then,
certainly, his future would be spoiled in the company of
hardened criminals.
20. Moreover, the chances of commencement and
conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are
not so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too,
for the indefinite period.
21. Except the present case, no other criminal
history of the applicant has been mentioned in the status
8 2025:HHC:5041
report, nor the same has been argued by learned
Additional Advocate General, during the course of
arguments. As such, the presumption of innocence is still
available to the applicant.
22. Furthermore, at the time of deciding the bail
application, detailed discussion about merits and demerits
of the case should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice
to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the case of the
accused (applicant).
23. The role, played by Mandeep (applicant), in the
alleged crime, would be proved during the trial as to
whether the alleged raped was on the pretext of marriage
or the same was a consensual relationship, between the
complainant and the applicant, as, according to the
applicant, he remained in prosecutrix’s rental
accommodation and thereafter, she had gone to his
parents’ house, where, she stayed for a considerable long
time.
24. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be
rejected merely as a matter of punishment, since, pre-trial
punishment is prohibited under the law, as the
punishment can be inflicted, after the conclusion of trial.
9 2025:HHC:5041
25. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is able to make out a case for his
release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. Hence,
the present bail application is liable to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed.
26. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be
released on bail in case FIR No.45 of 2024, dated
04.12.2024, registered under Section 376 of the IPC, with
Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., on his
furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of ₹50,000/-, with
one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli.
27. This order, however, shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a) The applicant 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;
b) The applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation
of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) The applicant shall not make any inducement,
threat or promises to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
10 2025:HHC:5041disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police
Officer; and
d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of
India without the prior permission of the Court.”
28. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present bail application.
29. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.
30. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of
the bail order to the Superintendent of District Jail Sadar,
Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through e-mail, with a direction
to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
31. In case, the applicant is not released within a
period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the
Superintendent of District Jail Sadar, Solan, Himachal
Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary,
DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of District Jail Sadar,
Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the
applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order
11 2025:HHC:5041
passed by this Court, within a period of one month from
today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
March 06, 2025
(Gaurav Thakur)
Digitally signed by RAJNI
Date: 2025.03.06 16:46:27 IST
[ad_1]
Source link