Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Vikram Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 593 of 2025 Decided On : 20-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ankush Dass Sood, Vivek Sharma
For the Respondents: H.S. Rawat, Virender Thakur

Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure, and the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64 and 351(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in a case of alleged sexual exploitation and threats - Court considered the nature of allegations and the applicant's background. (Paras 1, 20, 29)

(B) Pre-trial punishment - The court emphasized that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment and that the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Paras 21, 28)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, accused of sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage, sought bail, claiming the FIR was false and consensual relations existed. The prosecutrix alleged threats and financial coercion. (Paras 3, 4, 8.1)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was complete, and custodial interrogation was not required, thus granting bail. (Paras 15, 29)

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix and the necessity of custodial interrogation. (Paras 20, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and emphasized the presumption of innocence, allowing bail under certain conditions. (Paras 21, 28)

Result: Bail granted subject to conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.07/2025 dated 16.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Women Police Station Solan, H.P., applicant-Vikram Singh has filed the present-application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’).

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 Solan, H.P., 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 a law-abiding citizen and working as Marketing Representative in Pharma Company. FIR in question is stated to have been falsely registered to implicate him.

4. According to the applicant, he has nothing to do with the offence, as mentioned in the FIR in question, as, the relationship, between him and the prosecutrix, was consensual one and now, in order to create pressure for solemnizing the marriage, the present FIR has been registered against him.

5. It has been averred in the application that the applicant is having deep roots in the society and in case, the police is able to arrest him, it will cause prejudice to his future.

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. Vide order dated 20.03.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed.

8. As per the status report, which has been filed on 20.03.2025, on 16.03.2025, the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years, came to the Police Station and moved the complaint, disclosing therein, that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint.

8.1. According to the prosecutrix, Vikram Singh S/o Maan Singh (applicant) has sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage and due to the said fact, she got pregnant, in the month of September, 2024.

8.2. In addition to this, prosecutrix has further mentioned in the complaint that applicant had transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- in her account for aborting the foetus and also refused to marry her. Not only this, the applicant had also threatened to kill her, as well as, her family. Prosecutrix, as well as, her family members had also talked with the applicant, regarding their marriage, but, the applicant refused to solemnize the marriage. Lastly, apprehending the threat to her life, as well as, to her family members, prosecutrix has prayed that action be taken against the applicant.

8.3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 64 and 351(2) of BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion.

8.4. During the investigation, statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded, in which, she has got recorded that she befriended with the applicant and the applicant, thereafter on the pretext of marrying her, had forcibly raped her. She has further got recorded that on the pretext of marriage, applicant used to call her on various occasions and developed physical relations.

8.5. It is the further case of the police that subsequently, prosecutrix was sent to Regional Hospital, Solan, for medico legal examination and the doctor had preserved the samples, which were handed over to the police for sending the same to SFSL, Junga.

8.6. As per the medico legal examination, the prosecutrix was found carrying foetus of 25 weeks. Thereafter, the spot was visited and spot map was prepared.

8.7. During the investigation, it has also been found that the applicant was the tenant of the prosecutrix and she was seen several times going to the room of the applicant. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was produced, before the Court, where, her statement, under Secti