IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Maninder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr MP (M) No. 126 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in a case involving serious allegations including rape, blackmail, and threats - The applicant claimed false registration of the case and asserted his respectability in society - Interim protection was granted pending investigation. (Paras 1-8, 10-20)
(B) Presumption of Innocence - The applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law - The court emphasized that the allegations will be evaluated during the trial. (Paras 15-16)
(C) Medico-Legal Examination - The prosecutrix's refusal to undergo a medico-legal examination was noted, impacting the case's evidentiary weight. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant faced allegations of rape and blackmail from a married complainant, who claimed he had mixed intoxicants in a drink and recorded her without consent. The police completed the investigation, and the applicant joined the inquiry voluntarily.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed interim bail, noting that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and that the presumption of innocence applies.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the allegations, the applicant's respectability, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's presumption of innocence must be upheld, and pre-trial punishment is not permissible.
Result: Interim bail application granted.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant-Maninder Kumar has filed the present bail application, under Section 482 of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) on the ground that he is apprehending his arrest, in Case FIR No. 3 of 2025, dated 15th January, 2025, registered under Sections 64(2), 69, 352 and 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station Janjehali, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P.
2. By way of the present applicant, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court, to direct the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station Janjehali, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-noted case.
3. The relief, as claimed in the application, has been sought on the ground that the police is pressing hard by calling him to the Police Station in connection with the complaint, made by the complainant, in this case.
4. According to the applicant, the said case has falsely been registered against him and he has nothing to do with the allegations, as levelled against him.
5. As per the applicant, he is being blackmailed by the complainant, in this case.
6. The relief has also been sought on the ground that he is a respectable person and having deep roots in the society.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, under Section482 of the BNSS.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the applicant has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.
9. On 16th January, 2025, after issuing notice to the State, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for today, for filing the status report.
10. Today, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15th January, 2025, the prosecutrix produced a complaint before the police, mentioning therein, that she has been raped by the applicant.
10.1. According to the complainant, in the month of January, 2023, the applicant came to her house during the night hours. At that time, he was having some soft drink with him. The husband of the prosecutrix was not present there. Thereafter, the applicant offered her to take the said soft drink, in which, according to the complainant, he had mixed some intoxicated substance, due to which, the prosecutrix came under the influence of intoxication and the applicant had raped her. The applicant is also stated to have recorded her obscene video.
10.2. It has been mentioned in the said complaint, that thereafter, the applicant started threatening the complainant to make the said video viral. She has alleged that on the basis of the said video, the applicant used to rape her.
10.3. According to the complainant, the applicant had promised to marry and maintain her, but, now neither he is marrying her, nor, paying any maintenance to her.
10.4. It has further been alleged in the complaint, that on 10th January, 2025, the applicant again came to her residence and a scuffle took place between them and the applicant allegedly destroyed her phone.
10.5. On the basis of the said facts, the complainant had prayed that action be taken against the applicant.
10.6. Upon this, the police registered the case under Section 64 (2), 69, 352 and 324 (4) of the BNS, against the applicant and the criminal machinery swung into motion.
10.7. As per the status report, the complainant had mentioned, in her complaint, that she was raped by the applicant lastly in March, 2024, as such, she does not want to get herself medico-legally examined. Later on, the police added Section 351 (2) of the BNS and the prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital, Janjehali, for her medico-legal examination, where, she has refused to undergo medico-legal examination.
10.8. It has been mentioned in the status report that on 16th January, 2025, the state
The presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law.
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....
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail was granted as there's no prior record and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, ensuring cooperation in investigation.
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 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 bail decisions should consider the applicant's exceptional circumstances and highlight the necessity for fair trial procedures without prejudice to either party.
The presumption of innocence and completion of investigation justified granting bail, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, allowing bail based on the slow pace of the trial and change in circumstances while ensuring societal protection through str....
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted when no evidence necessitates custodial interrogation.
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.