Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 290 (HP)

Mandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 Rs. 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. 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 disclosing 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 passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.