IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Vinod Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 12 of 2025 Decided On : 07-01-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2) - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail in a case involving serious allegations of conspiracy and rape - The applicant claims innocence and has provided undertakings for bail conditions - The court considers the presumption of innocence and the completion of investigation - The court allows bail, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is prohibited. (Paras 1, 16, 15)
(B) Bail - Conditions for bail - The court sets conditions for bail, including availability for interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, and restrictions on leaving the country. (Paras 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of being involved in a conspiracy to commit rape, with the prosecutrix alleging that she was abducted and assaulted by another individual known to her. The applicant was identified as the driver of the vehicle used in the crime. (Paras 7.13, 7.14)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant's continued custody is not justified given the completion of the investigation and the presumption of innocence. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the applicant's role in the alleged crime and the appropriateness of granting bail given the serious nature of the allegations. (Paras 11, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's presumption of innocence and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is not permissible. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant-Vinod Singh, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, in case FIR No. 249 of 2024, dated 07.11.2024, registered under Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has nothing to do with the alleged offences.
3. As per the applicant, he has no role to play in the alleged crime and has not involved in it.
4. Apart from this, learned counsel appearing 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.
5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
6. In this case prosecutrix has been ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2, on 2.1.2025 and notices were ordered to be served upon her, through SHO Police Station, Nurpur.
7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.11.2024, the prosecutrix, along with her mother, appeared before the Police and made a complaint, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint.
7.1. According to her, her father is a labourer by profession. For the last four months, from the date of making the complainant, she is allegedly learning computer at Gangath. On 06.11.2024, after attending the computer classes, the prosecutrix was on her way to her home, on foot.
7.2. At about 1.30 p.m., in the afternoon, when, the prosecutrix reached a secluded place near Bera Ground, then a J.K. number car came there and the driver had stopped the car near the prosecutrix. Another person was sitting in the car, who had snatched the phone from the prosecutrix.
7.3. The said boy was earlier known to the prosecutrix, as, he was her friend through instagram, a social media App. The prosecutrix used to talk with said boy on instagram.
7.4. The said boy disclosed his name as Dinesh @ Sunny, resident of Vasauli, Jammu and Kashmir. Not only this, the said boy has also given his mobile number to her, thorugh which, they remained in touch with each other.
7.5. The prosecutrix has further alleged in the complaint that Dinesh @ Sunny dragged her inside the car and directed the driver to drive the car towards her house. When the said act of accused Dinesh was resisted by the prosecutrix, her mouth was gagged and the car was driven towards Forest side at secluded place, where, accused Dinesh @ Sunny directed the driver to park the car on the side of the road.
7.6. Consequently, the driver acted on the direction of accused Sunny. Thereafter, accused Sunny dragged the prosecutrix out of the car and took her towards the bushes on the side of the road. She was raped twice. Although, the prosecutrix raised alarm, but, no habitation was there, as such, no one could hear her alarm.
7.7. Thereafter, accused Sunny made her to sit in the car and directed the driver to take the car to Tallu. Consequently, the driver drove the car towards Tallu. One kilometer short to Tallu, Sunny thrown the prosecutrix out of the car. Thereafter, the driver took vehicle towards Tallu. Sunny had allegedly recorded the Video.
7.8. After reaching home, the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to her mother. Thereafter, she has made the complaint
7.9. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question, and the police machinery swung into motion.
7.10. During investigation, on the identification of the prosecutrix, the spot was visited and the statements witnesses under Section 180 of the BNSS were recorded. Thereafter, team of DFU, Nurpur, inspected the spot and physical evidence, so found, was also taken i
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 was granted as there's no prior record and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, ensuring cooperation in investigation.
The presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law.
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 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....
The presumption of innocence allows for interim bail confirmation when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and no prior criminal record exists.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's health condition and the lengthy trial process, imposing conditions to prevent witness tampering.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
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.