Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Abhay Kumar alias Nishu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
Cr. MP (M) No. 3055 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohar Singh
For the Respondent: Ajit Sharma

The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like rape, highlighting the severity of the charge, nature of evidence, and potential for witness tampering as critical considerations.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - Sections 137(2) and 64 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) - The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of false allegations and lack of evidence due to the victim's discrepancies. The prosecution insists on the seriousness of the accused's actions, including rape of a minor. (Paras 1-19)

(B) Bail - Principles for granting - Courts must consider the nature of the offence and the potential for interference in the judicial process. The nature of the charge and severity of possible punishment are key factors in bail determinations, particularly for serious crimes. (Paras 8-18).

Facts of the case:
The appellant is accused of rape, allegedly taking the victim from school and maintaining physical relations. Medical evidence provided no conclusive proof of recent intercourse, but digital evidence was obtained from the appellant's mobile phone. (Paras 3, 4, 11).

Findings of Court:
Sufficient prima facie material connected the petitioner to the crime. The allegations' seriousness warranted the denial of bail. (Paras 12-13).

Issues: The court addressed the credibility of the victim's testimony and whether discrepancies in statements warrant bail. (Paras 11-18).

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in bail applications, highlighting the serious nature of the accusations and the potential impact on the judicial process. (Paras 8-19).

Result: The petition for bail is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application for bail based on serious offenses. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments on innocence and discrepancies in testimony. (Para 2 , 5 , 6)
3. guidelines and principles for granting bail. (Para 8 , 10 , 14)
4. presumption in favor of bail, except in serious cases. (Para 9)
5. assessment of victim's testimony and implications for bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 18)
6. denial of bail based on the assessment of arguments and evidence. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 91 of 2025, dated 12.6.2025, registered at Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

2. It has been asserted that the prosecution’s version is false. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that the petitioner Abhay, had taken the victim from her school on 19.5.2025 and raped her. He had initially denied the incident. However, the victim did not menstruate. When the informant asked the victim, she revealed that the accused had maintained physical relations with her. The police registered an FIR and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner showed the place from where he had taken the victim. He also produced the Scooty in which he had taken the victim. The victim identified the room where she was raped. The police seized the bed sheet and the Scooty. The victim also produced her clothes, which were seized by the police. The Medical Officer stated that due to the delayed examination, there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The victim also revealed that the accused had shown porn clips to her. The police seized the mobile phone. The FSL found porn clips and photographs on the mobile phone. The victim was born on 7.2.2010. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of witnesses on 26.2.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There are various discrepancies in the statements of the victim, due to which the petitioner is entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The victim herself admitted that she had not narrated the incident to her mother, and much cannot be made out of the initial statement made by her. The bail Court is not to appreciate the statements of witnesses. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115 , Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while grant