Bail denied in rape of intellectually disabled victim as prima facie case established by corroborated victim statement, medical evidence, site blood stains; heinous offence with life imprisonment punishment bars release.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 142 of 2025, dated 25.10.2025, registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police that the petitioner called her inside the shop, where he raped her. The police arrested the petitioner and investigated the matter. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 15.12.2025. Recovery has been effected, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The prosecution's case is based upon the oral statements and other evidence, which require appreciation during the trial. The medical evidence does not show the commission of the rape. The petitioner is a senior citizen. He is a permanent resident of District Kangra, and there is no possibility of his absconding. The petitioner is suffering from various ailments. FIR No.137 of 2022 is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it is 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 prosecutrix was found on 25.10.2025 at 12.50 PM near Shiv Mandir, Baijnath. The police took her to the bazaar, and she pointed out a shop where she was raped. The police recorded her statement and investigated the matter. The police seized the material objects and sent them to FSL. As per the MLC of the petitioner, he was capable of conducting sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability. The police recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence and should not be released on bail. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard M/s Sarvshresth P. Dharoo and Ridhi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Sarvshresth P. Dharoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The result from FSL is awaited, and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner has raped the victim who was suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability. The MLCs of the victim and the petitioner corroborate the victim’s version. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous, and he should not be released on bail. 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 persona