Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1067 (HP)

Vikram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-20

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.07/2025 dated 16.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Women Police Station Solan, H.P., applicant-Vikram Singh has filed the present-application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Women Police Station Solan, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. The said relief has been sought on the ground that he is a law-abiding citizen and working as Marketing Representative in Pharma Company. FIR in question is stated to have been falsely registered to implicate him. 4. According to the applicant, he has nothing to do with the offence, as mentioned in the FIR in question, as, the relationship, between him and the prosecutrix, was consensual one and now, in order to create pressure for solemnizing the marriage, the present FIR has been registered against him. 5. It has been averred in the application that the applicant is having deep roots in the society and in case, the police is able to arrest him, it will cause prejudice to his future. 6. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 7. Vide order dated 20.03.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed. 8. As per the status report, which has been filed on 20.03.2025, on 16.03.2025, the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, came to the Police Station and moved the complaint, disclosing therein, that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint. 8.1. According to the prosecutrix, Vikram Singh S/o Maan Singh (applicant) has sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage and due to the said fact, she got pregnant, in the month of September, 2024. 8.2. In addition to this, prosecutrix has further mentioned in the complaint that applicant had transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- in her account for aborting the foetus and also refused to marry her. 8.2. In addition to this, prosecutrix has further mentioned in the complaint that applicant had transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- in her account for aborting the foetus and also refused to marry her. Not only this, the applicant had also threatened to kill her, as well as, her family. Prosecutrix, as well as, her family members had also talked with the applicant, regarding their marriage, but, the applicant refused to solemnize the marriage. Lastly, apprehending the threat to her life, as well as, to her family members, prosecutrix has prayed that action be taken against the applicant. 8.3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 64 and 351(2) of BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8.4. During the investigation, statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded, in which, she has got recorded that she befriended with the applicant and the applicant, thereafter on the pretext of marrying her, had forcibly raped her. She has further got recorded that on the pretext of marriage, applicant used to call her on various occasions and developed physical relations. 8.5. It is the further case of the police that subsequently, prosecutrix was sent to Regional Hospital, Solan, for medico legal examination and the doctor had preserved the samples, which were handed over to the police for sending the same to SFSL, Junga. 8.6. As per the medico legal examination, the prosecutrix was found carrying foetus of 25 weeks. Thereafter, the spot was visited and spot map was prepared. 8.7. During the investigation, it has also been found that the applicant was the tenant of the prosecutrix and she was seen several times going to the room of the applicant. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was produced, before the Court, where, her statement, under Section 183(3) of BNSS was recorded. 9. On the basis of the above status report, vide order 20.03.2025, Investigating Officer of the case/police of Women PS Solan, was directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 27.03.2025. 10. On 27.03.2025, complainant, along with her counsel, had put appearance and police had also filed the status report, in which, it has been submitted that the applicant was medico legally examined and on 22.03.2025, his mobile phone, along with SIM Card was taken into possession. The said mobile phone was also sent to SFSL, Junga. 10.1. 10. On 27.03.2025, complainant, along with her counsel, had put appearance and police had also filed the status report, in which, it has been submitted that the applicant was medico legally examined and on 22.03.2025, his mobile phone, along with SIM Card was taken into possession. The said mobile phone was also sent to SFSL, Junga. 10.1. During the investigation, it has also been transpired that the applicant was the tenant of prosecutrix’s family and he and prosecutrix are known to each other, for the last 5-6 years. As per the CDRs, both were found talking with each other on various occasions. Apart from the payment of Rs.40,000/- as per the status report, other transactions were also found to be made in her account by the applicant. 10.2. Lastly, the police has mentioned that nothing is to be enquired from the applicant, nor anything is to be recovered. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 02.04.2025. 11. In the status report, filed on 02.04.2025, the police has submitted that during the investigation, the prosecutrix had also levelled the allegations against the applicant that he took her to the clinic of Dr. Kapoor for aborting the foetus. Later on, the prosecutrix, applicant and prosecutrix’s sister-in-law had also gone there, but, the prosecutrix refused to get the foetus aborted, upon which, Dr. Amrish Kapoor, near Mohan Park, Solan, was also associated in the investigation, who has disclosed that the applicant brought the prosecutrix to his clinic, but, he has not taken any steps to abort the foetus. 11.1. As per further revelation of Dr. Amrish Kapoor, prosecutrix, applicant and prosecutrix’s sister-in-law had again come to his clinic, but, at that time, the doctor has disclosed them each and everything, upon which, the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law refused to get the foetus aborted and doctor has also refused to abort the same. 11.2. In the status report, filed on 02.04.2025, it has also been mentioned that on 28.03.2025, the complainant’s side has made a complaint, mentioning therein, that from the applicant’s side, his paternal aunt, namely Kanta, from her mobile No.78075-88670, called father of the prosecutrix for pressurizing him to withdraw the complaint, upon which, CDRs of the mobile phone of father of the prosecutrix and paternal aunt of the applicant, were obtained. As per CDRs, on 17/18.03.2025, from the mobile number of paternal aunt of the applicant, two calls were found to have been made on the mobile number of the father of the prosecutrix, upon which, the paternal aunt of the applicant was also associated in the investigation. 11.3. On the basis of above status report, for the first time, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application, so that the prosecutrix may be saved from any pressure or physical harm. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 01.05.2025. 12. On 01.05.2025, police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the information, regarding the antecedents of the applicant, was obtained from Police Station Kupvi and as per the information, no other case is found to have been registered against him. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and only challan is to be prepared. 13. In the status report, which has been filed on 13.05.2025, similar stand has been taken. 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. As per the stand, taken by the police, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the challan is yet to be prepared, as per status report. This fact is sufficient to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the police. 16. The prosecutrix is major and she had not alleged only a stray incident, but, according to her, she was ravished by the applicant, on the pretext of the marriage and thereafter, the applicant had allegedly transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- to get the foetus aborted, whereas, according to the status report, filed by the police, it has also been found, on the basis of CDRs, that they were in touch with each other for a considerable long time and applicant was her tenant. 17. The applicant, in the present application, has admitted the relationship with the prosecutrix, but, according to him, the same was consensual relationship. 18. The age of the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the status report as 24 years. 17. The applicant, in the present application, has admitted the relationship with the prosecutrix, but, according to him, the same was consensual relationship. 18. The age of the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the status report as 24 years. The prosecutrix and the applicant were not strangers to each other, rather, they were known to each other for the last 5-6 years and according to the status report, filed on 01.05.2025, when, CDRs of both applicant and the prosecutrix were obtained, it was found that they were in constant touch with each other. 19. Apart from the amount of Rs.40,000/- as per the status report, there were number of transactions, between the applicant and the prosecutrix. 20. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that it would be proved during the trial as to whether the relationship, between the applicant and the prosecutrix, was consensual or the consent of the prosecutrix was obtained on the pretext of marriage. Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law. 21. When, the police is not coming forward with the plea that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, then, the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment. 22. Besides this, at the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about the 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. Even otherwise, it has also been mentioned that when, the applicant refused to marry her, then, the prosecutrix approached the police and there is nothing on the file, when, the applicant had allegedly refused her to marry. 24. Considering the totality of the circumstances, according to which, the complaint was made on 16.03.2025, whereas, the prosecutrix allegedly got pregnant, in the month of September, 2024, as well as, the fact that the investigation, in the present case, is complete, the interim order dated 20.03.2025 is liable to be made absolute. 25. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, are concerned, as per the CDRs, on 17/18.03.2025, the paternal aunt of the applicant had contacted the father of the prosecutrix, prior to the filing of the present application, which was filed on 19.03.2025. 25. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, are concerned, as per the CDRs, on 17/18.03.2025, the paternal aunt of the applicant had contacted the father of the prosecutrix, prior to the filing of the present application, which was filed on 19.03.2025. There is nothing on record that after filing the present application, any attempt has been made by the applicant’s side to coerce the witnesses or the prosecutrix. Even otherwise, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed upon the applicant, in case, any direction is issued to I.O/police of Women Police Station Solan, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 26. Even otherwise, the applicant is the permanent resident of District Shimla, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 27. The bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law. 28. According to the police, nothing is to be recovered from the applicant, nor at his instance. The applicant is presumed to be innocent, till his guilt is proved, by the competent Court of law. 29. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for the relief, as claimed in the application. Consequently, interim order, dated 20.03.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 30. Consequently, interim order, dated 20.03.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 30. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so 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 the appropriate application; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 31. 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. 32. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 33. 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 violated by the applicant.