IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Munish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 277 of 2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 69 and 351(2) - Bail application - Applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in a case of alleged rape, claiming innocence and false implication - The court considered the applicant's permanent residency and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation - Interim protection granted, subject to conditions. (Paras 2, 10, 15)
(B) Bail - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law - The court emphasized that the applicant's permanent residency mitigates flight risk and that the allegations will be addressed during trial. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a permanent resident of District Mandi, sought bail in a case where he was accused of raping a complainant under the pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged coercion and false promises, while the applicant claimed innocence. (Paras 3, 4, 8.1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's permanent residency and cooperation with the investigation warranted bail, and that pre-trial punishment is not permissible. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the complainant's allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's permanent residency and lack of need for custodial interrogation justified granting bail, emphasizing that the merits of the case would be determined at trial. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Interim order made absolute, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant Manish has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) in case FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 12.2.2025, registered under Sections 69 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Women Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case, as, he is apprehending his arrest, in the said case.
3. Relief, as claimed in the application, has been sought on the ground that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicate in this case.
4. According to the applicant, he is permanent resident of District Mandi, as such, he is having deep roots in the society, and in case, he is arrested in a false case, it will ruin his reputation, in the society.
5. The applicant has termed the case, as mentioned, in the FIR, as false, and according to him, he is ready to abide by any conditions, to be imposed, by this Court, in case, any order is passed, under Section 482 BNSS , in this case.
6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O. under Section 482 of the BNSS.
7. On the basis of above, applicant has sought the relief, as claimed in the present bail application.
8. On 17.2.2025, the interim protection was awarded to the applicant and the case was ordered to be listed on 28.2.2025. On that day, the Police filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 12.2.2025, one Zero FIR No. 01 of 2025, was received from Women Police Station, Hamirpur, in Women Police Station, Bilaspur, H.P. for registration of the FIR. The complainant, aged 26 years, moved the complaint before the SHO, Women Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P., disclosing therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the application and married to one ‘X’ (name withheld). However, the said marriage has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
8.1 According to her, accused Manish Kumar (applicant) is known to her, from the last four years, as they met through Facebook (Social Media app). Thereafter, they used to talk to each other, on phone. She has further alleged in the complaint that both of them were interested to marry each other and they had also disclosed this fact to their respective family members. However, mother of the applicant is stated to have not agreed to the said proposal. However, applicant and the complainant remained in touch with each other, on phone.
8.2 It has further been alleged in the complaint that in the month of July, 2024, applicant had called the complainant to Jahu fair, for the first time, upon which, the complainant had gone to Jahu fair to meet the applicant.
8.3 It is the further story of the complainant that 2-3 days thereafter, Manish called her again to Gagan Hotel, Ghumarwin, upon which, she went there and after talking to each other, returned to her native place. 3-4 days thereafter, the applicant had again called her to the same Hotel, and disclosed to one of his friends that he wants to marry the complainant and put the wedding garland in her neck. Thereafter, he took the complainant to Ghumarwin, where accused compelled her to be physical with him, upon which, she refused. On this, applicant is stated to have threatened the complainant that in case she does not make physical relations with him, he will not marry her. Thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, applicant forcibly ravished her.
8.4 It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, applicant Manish stopped attending her calls and refused to marry her. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against him, upon which, the Police of Women Police Stat
The court emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and granted bail based on the applicant's permanent residency and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.
The presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law.
The court ruled that bail can be granted when specific allegations are lacking and the applicant cooperates with the investigation, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited as a form of punishment, affirming the presumption of innocence and allowing bail based on the applicant's age and lack of criminal history....
Bail applications should avoid prejudging the merits of the case, maintaining the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail was granted as there's no prior record and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, ensuring cooperation in investigation.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; the court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the nature of allegations and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail can be granted based on the completion of investigation, the petitioner's residence, and the overall facts of the case, including the med....
The presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
The court denied bail based on the severity of charges against the applicant, his status as an absconder, and the potential risk of witness coercion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.