Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 841 (HP)

Rohit Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-30

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Kainthla, J.) The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 14.3.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) at the Women Police Station in Baddi, District Solan, H.P. The allegations against the petitioner are highly improbable. They contain serious defects, major contradictions, and inherent flaws. The victim changed her version in her recorded statements. The statements are contradictory and lack authenticity. There is no ocular or scientific evidence against the petitioner. The victim was over 17 years of age at the time of the incident. The matter was listed for consideration on charge on 16.12.2024. The prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, and it will take considerable time to dispose of the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, claiming that his daughter (the victim) had left home on 12.3.2024 without informing anyone. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. They obtained call detail records and found that the mobile number registered in the victim’s brother's name had been in contact with Rohit. The police received confidential information and searched for the victim. She was located at Keshavpur Gurella, (U.P.) in the house of Bihari Ram, the father of the petitioner. Initially, the victim stated that she was living separately and that no wrong act had been committed against her. She also refused to undergo a medical examination. She later made a statement before the learned Magistrate, Nalagarh under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 23.5.2024 asserting that the petitioner had taken her to Haridwar, Delhi, and Lakhimpur Khiri Gurella, where he had raped her. The police added Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. They arrested the petitioner, collected material objects, and sent them to the FSL. No blood or semen was detected in the material objects. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 10.2.2025. The prosecution has cited 30 witnesses, and no witness has been examined as yet. Hence, the status report. 3. They arrested the petitioner, collected material objects, and sent them to the FSL. No blood or semen was detected in the material objects. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 10.2.2025. The prosecution has cited 30 witnesses, and no witness has been examined as yet. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Prikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Prikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There are various contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded by the police, the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the Court during the trial. These contradictions are sufÏcient to cast a doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.6.2024. The trial has not commenced, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the victim stated on oath before the learned Magistrate and the Court that petitioner had raped her. This version has to be accepted prima facie as correct at this stage. The prosecution evidence has commenced and will be completed soon. 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. 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. 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. 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 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The victim stated in her statement recorded by learned Magistrate that the petitioner took her to Haridwar, Delhi and Lakhimpur Gurella, where he raped her. He also video recorded the act and threatened her to make it viral. She made a similar statement on oath during the trial. Therefore, prima facie, the victim’s version is to be accepted as correct that the petitioner had raped her. 10. He also video recorded the act and threatened her to make it viral. She made a similar statement on oath during the trial. Therefore, prima facie, the victim’s version is to be accepted as correct that the petitioner had raped her. 10. It was submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of the victim recorded before the Police, the learned Magistrate and the Court, however, this submission is not to be appreciated while considering the bail petition. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, and dacoity Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of trial. Bail cannot be granted because there are some discrepancies in the deposition, which affect the credibility of the victim. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event that the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 11. Therefore, the bail cannot be granted on the ground that there are some discrepancies in the statements of the victim made before the Police, the learned Magistrate and the Court. 12. It was submitted that the version of the victim is not supported by the scientific evidence, and the victim had refused to undergo the medical examination. This submission will not help the petitioner because the Court has to see the prima facie case while deciding the bail petition. Prima facie, the victim’s statement on oath that she was raped has to be accepted as correct. The corroboration of the statement of the victim is required if the statement is found to be not trustworthy, and not in all cases. It is for the learned Trial Court to see whether the statement is trustworthy or not and whether the corroboration is required, and this Court cannot look into this aspect at this stage. 13. It was submitted that the victim had not raised any hue and cry when she was being taken to Haridwar, Delhi and Lakhimpur Khiri Gurella. The victim is a minor, and her consent is immaterial. Therefore, the fact that she had not raised any hue and cry or had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner will not help him. 14. The petitioner had kidnapped a minor and raped her. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail, keeping in view the gravity of the offence. 15. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioner himself has placed on record the statement of the victim, which shows that the trial has commenced. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail, keeping in view the gravity of the offence. 15. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioner himself has placed on record the statement of the victim, which shows that the trial has commenced. The copy of the order sheet dated 10.2.2025 was not filed to show the number of witnesses examined on that day. Hence, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. 16. No other point was urged. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 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.