Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 369 (HP)

Saransh Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.02/2025 dated 07.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 69 , 88, 352 , 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Women Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., applicant-Saransh Chauhan has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S’). 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 Kullu, 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 innocent person and apprehending his arrest, in the above-noted case. 4. Applicant has termed all the allegations, which have been levelled against him, as ‘false’. 5. According to the applicant, the age of the complainant is 33 years and there is no question that at any point of time, anything had happened with the complainant. 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. When, put to notice, the complainant has put appearance, before the Court. Thereafter, the police has filed the status report on 27.02.2025, disclosing therein, that on 07.02.2025, zero FIR, registered with Women Police Station, Kullu, under Section 69 of BNS , was produced by LC Rabna No.741, along with complaint, photocopy of the marriage affidavit and certificate under Section 63(4) of CBSA. The victim was also with her. In the complaint, the victim/complainant has alleged that she is resident of the place, as mentioned in the application and Saransh Chauhan S/o Shyam Chand (applicant), on the pretext of marriage, had developed physical relations with her for the last four years. He has also tortured her mentally and physically. 8. Not only this, according to the complainant, Saransh Chauhan (applicant) has administered certain medicines forcibly to get her foetus aborted. He has also beaten her by coming to her shop and also threatened her. 9. According to the complainant, Saransh Chauhan (applicant) had solemnized the marriage with her on 29.01.2024 at Sheetla Mata Temple, (X) (name withheld). 8. Not only this, according to the complainant, Saransh Chauhan (applicant) has administered certain medicines forcibly to get her foetus aborted. He has also beaten her by coming to her shop and also threatened her. 9. According to the complainant, Saransh Chauhan (applicant) had solemnized the marriage with her on 29.01.2024 at Sheetla Mata Temple, (X) (name withheld). The affidavit of the same has been annexed. Lastly, she has deposed that Saransh Chauhan (applicant) developed physical relations with her and gave her assurance that he will take her to his house, but, she was not taken there. She has also alleged that the parents of the applicant allured her to end the relation with their son, on the pretext of paying her Rs.20,00,000/-. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against the applicant. 10. On the basis of above facts, the police has registered the case, under Section 69 of the BNS . 11. On 07.02.2025, the prosecutrix was taken to Regional Hospital, Kullu, for her medico legal examination, where, the physical evidence, so collected by the doctor, was taken into police possession, along with MLC. In the MLC, doctor has opined that “according to the examination, sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, hence, final opinion will be given after the reports (RFSL)”. 12. Thereafter, the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, under Section 180 of BNS . On the basis of the said statement, made by the prosecutrix, Section 88 of BNS has been added, in this case. 13. In the supplementary statement, prosecutrix disclosed that on 08.02.2025, Saransh Chauhan (applicant) took her to Hotel Shishamati, Kullu, where, she was raped on the pretext of marriage. 14. On 10.02.2025, Hotel Shishamati, Kullu was visited. On the identification of the prosecutrix, spot map was prepared. Documentary evidence was also taken into possession. On the same day, she has also identified the room in the Niranya Guest House Katrain. Copy of the visitor register was also taken into possession, along with the documentary evidence. 15. On 11.02.2025, prosecutrix was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Kullu, where, her statement was recorded, under Section 183(6) of BNSS . In the said statement, the prosecutrix has herself controverted the factum of her marriage with the applicant. 15. On 11.02.2025, prosecutrix was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Kullu, where, her statement was recorded, under Section 183(6) of BNSS . In the said statement, the prosecutrix has herself controverted the factum of her marriage with the applicant. She has also revealed that applicant has got mentioned in the affidavit that they had solemnized the marriage in Sheetla Mata Temple, whereas, according to her, the said certificate is false, as, no rituals were performed. 16. Thereafter, the priest of the said temple was enquired, who has also supported the case of the prosecutrix by disclosing that no marriage was solemnized between the prosecutrix and the applicant. 17. In pursuance of the interim directions, issued by this Court, vide order dated 10.02.2025, the applicant had joined the investigation and was also medico legally examined. 18. On 24.02.2025, as per the stand of the police, the prosecutrix produced two original marriage affidavits, which were allegedly executed by and between the prosecutrix and accused, which were notarized by Notary Public at Kullu, on 29.01.2024. Apart from this, print out of the WhatsApp chat was also produced. 19. Lastly, it has been mentioned that the investigation is almost complete and only result from RFSL is awaited and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant. However, it has been prayed that in case, the interim order is made absolute, the applicant may coerce the prosecutrix, as well as, the witnesses. 20. In the supplementary status report, which has been filed on 10.03.2025, similar stand has been taken by the police. 21. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 22. In this case, the prosecutrix levelled the allegations against the applicant for having sexually exploited her, on the basis of false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix is a mature lady of 32 years. In the complaint, upon which, the zero FIR was registered, she has alleged that on 29.01.2024, accused had solemnized marriage with her at Sheetla Mata Temple, (X) (name withheld), whereas, when, her statement, under Section 183(6) of BNS , was recorded, she resiled from the said statement and denied the factum of marriage, but, took the plea that the accused got mentioned in the marriage affidavits that they had solemnized the marriage at Sheetla Mata Temple, (X) (name withheld). 23. 23. At this stage, there is nothing on record to show that there was an intention on the part of the applicant to sexually exploit the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, as, on the one hand, prosecutrix has taken the plea that she has solemnized the marriage with the applicant on 29.01.2024, whereas, during the investigation, when, she was produced, before the Court of learned JMFC, Court No.5, Kullu, she resiled, while making the statement, under Section 183(6) of BNSS . 24. Even otherwise, it will be proved during the trial, as to whether the applicant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives or had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust. 25. Moreover, 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). 26. Considering the two different stands, one in the complaint, upon which, FIR has been registered and the other one, which, she had taken, while making the statement, before the Court of learned JMFC, Court No.5, Kullu, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case to grant the relief, as claimed in the application. 27. Furthermore, it is the specific case of the police that the investigation is complete and no prayer for custodial interrogation has been made by the police. 28. Besides this, the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law, as the applicant is having no other criminal antecedents. 29. Consequently, the directions, as contained in the order dated 10.02.2025, under para 10(i), 10(iii) to 10(xi), are made absolute. 30. 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. 31. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 32. 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. 33. 31. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 32. 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. 33. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.