Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 400 (HP)

Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-19

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 208 of 2024, dated 2.9.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75, 78, 64(2) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim filed an affidavit before the police on 27.3.2024 stating that the petitioner used to harass her on Facebook Messenger. She was assured by the petitioner not to do so, hence, she wanted to withdraw the complaint filed by her. Subsequently, she filed the present FIR. The petitioner and victim are married and the petitioner could not have entered into a physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner is aged 39 years. His family is dependent upon him. The investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim came out of her home on 1.9.2024 at about 11.00 PM. The petitioner had concealed himself in the vicinity. He caught hold of the victim. She cried for help. Her husband and her nephew reached the spot. The petitioner ran away from the spot. He called the victim’s nephew and threatened to kill him. The petitioner used to send messages to the victim since 2020. The victim used to talk to him as the petitioner and the victim are resident of the same village. The petitioner also threatened to drown the victim in the lake. Once the petitioner made a call to the victim in the presence of her husband and the matter was reported to the police. However, it was compromised with the intervention of the local people. The petitioner undertook not to harass the victim but he failed to honour his promise and he continued to harass her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim made a statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) asserting that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with her from February/March 2020 till February 2024. The police arrested the petitioner. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim made a statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) asserting that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with her from February/March 2020 till February 2024. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner led the police to the places where he had harassed the victim and maintained sexual relations with her. The police seized the articles and the mobile phone of the petitioner. The mobile phone was found to be factory reset on 9.4.2024 and no obscene material was found in it. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The matter was listed on 12.3.2025 for consideration on charge. Hence the status report. 3 . I have heard M/s Hemant Vaid and Yudhveer Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Hemant Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had made a complaint against the petitioner in March 2024 in which no allegation of rape was made. She also made a complaint in September 2024 but did not state anything about the commission of rape. She made a statement regarding the rape for the first time when her statement was recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. The plea that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage is not acceptable because the parties are already married and could not have married each other without getting a divorce. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and he is accused of committing a heinous crime which affects the society at large. The petitioner had threatened the victim and he can intimidate her in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The petitioner had threatened the victim and he can intimidate her in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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) 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. 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 and 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 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the informant made allegations regarding the rape for the first time when her statement was recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Admittedly, she had filed a complaint in March 2024, wherein no allegation of the petitioner having raped her from February/March 2020 till 2024 were made. Similarly, no allegations of the rape was made in the FIR lodged in September 2024. Hence, prima facie the allegations framed cannot be accepted at their face value. 10. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had factory reset his mobile phone which resulted in the deletion of the data in it. This shows the guilt of the petitioner. This submission is also not acceptable. The victim executed an affidavit on 27.3.2024 that she wanted to withdraw the complaint made by her, therefore, no case was pending against the petitioner on 9.4.2024 when the mobile phone was factory reset and this cannot be taken to be an incriminating circumstance against the petitioner. 11. Much reliance was placed upon the disclosure statement made by the petitioner pointing out various places, however, the status report is silent regarding any recovery having been effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the petitioner and the admissibility of such disclosure statement without any recovery is prima facie doubtful. 12. The petitioner was arrested on 4.9.2024. The status report shows that the matter is listed for consideration on charge. Thus, the trial is not likely to conclude at the earliest. The charge sheet has already been filed before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. This submission is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner as the apprehension can be removed by imposing stringent conditions. 14. The status report does not show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Therefore, there is no impediment in granting bail to the petitioner. 15. This submission is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner as the apprehension can be removed by imposing stringent conditions. 14. The status report does not show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Therefore, there is no impediment in granting bail to the petitioner. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 16. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. 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.