Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Daya Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2951 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Praveen Chandel
For the Respondents: Mohinder Zharaick, Bhagirath Sharma

Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail was granted as there's no prior record and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, ensuring cooperation in investigation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64(1), 351(3), and 333 - Application for bail - The applicant seeks bail pending investigation of FIR for alleged serious offenses including rape and threats to kill - Procedural adherence required for the bail application given that the prosecutrix did not appear in court despite being summoned - Interim protection granted on the basis that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation and no prior offenses exist against the applicant. (Paras 1, 22, 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, Daya Ram, alleged that he has been falsely implicated in a case involving serious charges including rape and threats to kill the prosecutrix. Initial bail applications were dismissed by lower courts, leading to the current petition for bail based on the absence of any other cases against him. (Paras 1, 6)

Findings of Court:
The applicant's interim protection was made absolute, allowing him bail under strict conditions, prioritizing his cooperation with the investigation and ensuring the safety of witnesses is respected. (Paras 22, 23)

Issues: The core issues were whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a witness tampering risk, and therefore the conditions under which bail should be granted. (Paras 16, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-trial punishment is not permissible and that the applicant's interim bail should be granted given the lack of other registered offenses and the circumstances of the case. The necessity of judicial custody was found lacking at this stage. (Paras 21, 22)

Result: The interim order is made absolute subject to specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application filed under section 482. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant claims innocence and respectability. (Para 3 , 4)
3. application for bail under section 482 and its implications. (Para 5 , 7)
4. factual allegations made by the prosecutrix. (Para 6 , 8 , 15)
5. facts of the fir and investigation outcomes. (Para 9 , 10 , 16 , 19)
6. details of prior relationship and alleged threats. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. police concerns about witness tampering. (Para 17 , 18)
8. conditions for bail and the rationale behind the decision. (Para 20 , 21)
9. interim protection made absolute per circumstances. (Para 22 , 24)
10. conditions imposed for bail. (Para 23)
11. directions for regular bail application and liberty to the state. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Applicant-Daya Ram, has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), with a prayer to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Case FIR No.73 of 2024, dated 15.12.2024, registered, under Section 64 (1) 351(3) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS ’).

2. Since the petitioner has not impleaded the complainant/prosecutrix, as party, as such, vide order dated 26.12.2024, the prosecutrix has been impleaded, as party-respondent No.2 and has been ordered to be served through SHO Police Station Pachhad. Despite notice, the prosecutrix has not opted to put appearance and contest the application.

3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.

4. As per the applicant, he belongs to a respectable family and is having deep roots in the society.

5. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate, has given certain undertakings on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS .

6. Applicant has also tried his luck before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., by moving Bail Application No.289-N/22 of 2024. However, the said bail application has been dismissed, vide order, dated 19^th December, 2024.

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

8. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15.12.2024, the prosecutrix, along with her sister, appeared before the Police and made a complaint, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint. According to her, on 2.12.2024, Daya Ram son of Jasmat Singh (applicant), had forcibly raped her and also threatened to kill her.

8.1. Thereafter, on 6.12.2024, the applicant has made efforts to ravish her, upon which, the prosecutrix had resisted. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly brought Vice-President Sanjeev Thakur, Vijay Pal Thakur and Dhaneshwar Thakur to the house of the prosecutrix and matter was discussed in their presence. Thereafter, they had said that they are busy for 3-4 days in a marriage. Thereafter, they assured her to look into the matter. The prosecutrix allegedly waited for their response for three days, but no response has been received.

8.2. Thereafter, on 09.12.2024, the prosecutrix has called the police, by dialing number 1091. In order to save her social humiliation, the prosecutrix has not disclosed the fact to her family members and thought it proper to compromise the matter with the applicant.

8.3. The complainant has further got mentioned in the complaint that on the same night, applicant has swallowed some poisonous substance. This fact came to the notice of the prosecutrix and her husband on 11.12.2024 and according to her, if something is happened to Daya Ram (applicant), she will not be responsible for that.

8.4. On the basis of the above fac