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.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Applicant-Mandeep has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to release him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.45 of 2024, dated 04.12.2024, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, at the instance of the prosecutrix.

3. The applicant has given his age as 19 years and age of the complainant as 21 years.

4. As per the applicant, he has been harassed by the complainant to extort money from him and when, he showed his unwillingness to pay the same, the present case has been registered.

5. Applicant is stated to be the sole bread-earner of his family and he is presently in judicial custody.

6. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2025.

7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

9. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 04.12.2024, zero FIR was received from Women Police Station, Mandi. The said FIR has been registered on the fact that the prosecutrix, along with her friend, appeared before the police and made a complaint, mentioning therein that she is the resident of Village ‘X’, Uttar Pradesh. Her parents had expired, when, she was minor and she has been brought up by her maternal aunt (Masi). She has studied up to VIII Class.

10. As per further contents of the complaint, made by the prosecutrix, after attaining the age of 18 years, she has started working in a pharmaceutical company at Baddi, where, she met with Mandeep (applicant), who was also working there. After some time, Mandeep (applicant) has started residing with prosecutrix in her rented accommodation, on the pretext that after some time, he will marry her. On the pretext of marriage, applicant had raped her for the first time in the month of January, 2024. Thereafter, they stayed together, till February, 2024 and after that, in the month of March, 2024, he took her to his native place at Bhanvla.

11. As per the complaint, Mandeep (applicant) had also apprised his family members about his relationship with prosecutrix and she stayed there for about 3 months and during that period, whenever, the prosecutrix requested the mother of the applicant to perform their marriage, then, she started making excuses on the one pretext or the other. Mandeep (applicant) got her signatures over certain documents on the pretext that these are the documents of their marriage. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent back to her parents’ house at Uttar Pradesh, where, she remained for about 2 months and then, came back to Barotiwala. When, Mandeep (applicant) had stopped attending her calls, then, she apprised the maternal uncle of the applicant about this fact and Mandeep (applicant) had blocked her number.

12. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, she had gone to Sarkaghat, at the instance of her maternal uncle. On 01.12.2024, Mand