Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 14.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 May, 2025
2025:HHC:16062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 359 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.05.2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025.
Vipin 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. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional 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 FIR No. 30 of 2023, dated 9.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), at Women Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:16062 petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. He belongs to a good family, and there is no case pending against him. The allegations levelled by the informant are not corroborated by any scientific evidence. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kullu, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner 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 victim was studying in class 9th. She complained of pain in her stomach and nausea. Her mother brought her to the Kullu hospital for her treatment. The Medical Officer advised some tests. He revealed after examining the reports that the victim was pregnant. The victim revealed that the petitioner had raped her one and half month before her statement. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statement of the victim was recorded, in which she revealed that she was being sexually exploited for more than one year. As per the victim's certificate, she was born on 19.11.2010. The police arrested the petitioner. As per the report of DNA analysis, the petitioner is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the product of conception. The matter was listed for the victim's 3 2025:HHC:16062 statement on 2.4.2025. The statement of one witness has been recorded. The petitioner is residing adjacent to the house of the victim. The petitioner would intimidate the victim in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 2023, and the prosecution has only examined one witness. There is delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the prosecution has examined one witness. The matter was listed for the recording of statements of prosecution witnesses on 2.4.2025. There is no delay in the progress of the trial, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4
2025:HHC:16062
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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -
"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 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) 5 2025:HHC:16062
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, 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 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 application for bail 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) 6 2025:HHC:16062
8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. A perusal of the status report shows that the victim complained that she was raped by the petitioner. The Medical Officer found that she was pregnant. The product of conception was sent to FSL, and as per the report of analysis, the DNA of the victim and the petitioner matched the DNA of the product of conception. The petitioner is the biological father, and the victim is the biological mother of the product of conception. This prima facie corroborates the version of the victim that the petitioner had raped her. The victim was aged 12 years 11 months and 21 days at the time of the incident and is related to the petitioner. Keeping in view the relationship and the age of the victim, the offence is heinous.
10. It was submitted that there is delay in the progress of the trial. This is not acceptable. The zimni order sheets filed by the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner had moved an application on 10.1.2024 that he wanted to change his counsel, hence, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, the adjournment was sought for consideration on the charge on 10.5.2024 and 13.6.2024.7
2025:HHC:16062 The charge was framed on 4.7.2024, statement of one prosecution witness was recorded on 11.11.2024 and witnesses at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were summoned for 2.4.2025. The order sheets do not show any delay in the trial except the one caused at the instance of the petitioner. Since the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong, hence, he is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial.
11. The status report mentions that the petitioner is residing in the neighbourhood of the victim, hence, the apprehension that the petitioner can intimidate the victim has to be accepted as correct.
12. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail; hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time.
13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th May, 2025 (Chander)