Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sanjay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 317 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(j), 452, 506, and 354C - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for serious offences including rape, asserts innocence and lack of evidence - Opposed by prosecution citing intimidation risk and heinous nature of crime - Court considers parameters for bail as per Supreme Court precedents - Delay in FIR registration and age of parties noted - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 11, 13, 14)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and risk of witness tampering - Conditions imposed must facilitate justice and ensure presence of accused. (Paras 7, 8, 12)
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.04/2025 dated 09.01.2025 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (j), 452, 506 and 354C of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police asserting that the petitioner entered her house in a state of intoxication and raped her. He clicked her photographs and threatened to make them viral in case any complaint was made to any person. He asked the victim to enter into a physical relationship with him or else he would publish her photographs. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the material objects. The police presented the challan after the completion of the investigation. The result of the analysis is awaited. The petitioner has no previous criminal history. The petitioner has committed a heinous crime and he would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner does not have any photographs of the victim and her version is highly improbable. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He would intimidate the victim in case of his release on bail, therefore, 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed on page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the nature of accusations, the gravity of the offence, and the risk of witness tampering, while ensuring conditions facilitate justice.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate serious allegations, and the accused's rights must be balanced with the need for justice.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the accused's community ties and the nature of the allegations, not solely on the seriousness of the charges.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like abetting rape, considering the gravity of the crime and potential influence on the victim.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
The court emphasized that in serious criminal cases, particularly involving sexual offences, the gravity of the allegations and potential witness tampering are critical factors in bail considerations....
The court established that the evidence did not support a murder charge under Section 302 IPC, indicating a potential culpable homicide, thus granting bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The court emphasized that bail in heinous offences against minors is not granted lightly, considering the nature of the crime and the right to a speedy trial.
The court emphasized that the heinous nature of the crime and the evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
