Discrepancies in a victim's statements do not justify bail in serious offences like rape once the trial has commenced, reflecting the need to ensure trial integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 43 of 2023, dated 2.11.2023, registered at Women Police Station, Solan, for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 376D of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The petitioner was arrested on 5.11.2023. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete. The petitioner filed a bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge Solan (Fast Track Court), which was dismissed on 27.3.2024. There is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding. He shall abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed to filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police stating that she was going to Kurali on 31.10.2023. She did not have sufficient money. She called her brother and asked him to send money. He sent the money to Akshay's mobile. Akshay stated that he did not have change with him and took her to his brother's shop, whom he called Sunny. They offered a glass of juice to the victim. She became unconscious after consuming it. She was taken to a room where the petitioner and Vishal again administered a glass of juice to the victim. She became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found an injury on her neck and pain in her private parts. She was made to board a bus. She narrated the incident to her brother, who called her father. The matter was reported to the police. The police conducted the investigation and got the victim medically examined. The police arrested the petitioner and Vishal and subjected them to a medical examination. As per the date of birth of the victim, she was born on 28.09.2006 and was a minor on the date of the incident. The result of the analysis shows that no semen was detected in the samples collected by the medical officer; hence, the DNA profile was not conducted. The Medical Officer stated that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The statement of the victim was recorded on 15.06.2024, and the matter is now listed on19.4.2025 for evidence. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr Ankush Verma, Advocate, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Ankush Verma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the police had filed the charge sheet. The statement of the victim has been recorded, and there are discrepancies in the statements of the victim recorded before the Court and the police. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of heinous offences. He can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed mus