Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Deepak Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 116 of 2026
Decided On : 16-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Anuj Gupta & Surjeet Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Subsequent bail after prior rejection requires substantial change in circumstances; victim's resiling post-trial not ground for bail in serious sexual offences with prima facie DNA, video evidence; severe punishment weighs against release.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 64, 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5); Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66E and 67 - Bail application - Subsequent application after prior rejection permissible only upon substantial change in circumstances having direct impact on earlier decision - Judicial discipline requires restraint absent such change (Paras 8 to 11).

(B) Serious sexual offences - Post-commencement of trial, bail not to be granted merely on victim resiling from statement or discrepancies in testimony - Prima facie evidence including video recording, DNA match from semen on victim’s clothing and accused’s blood, establishes strong prosecution case - Court not to appreciate evidence at bail stage (Paras 12 to 15).

(C) Bail jurisdiction - Severe punishment (minimum 10 years to life imprisonment) key factor against grant - Nature of charge, supporting evidence and potential punishment influence likelihood of appearance at trial (Paras 16 and 17).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case involving sexual assault, video recording and threats. Arrested post-FIR, charge sheet filed, trial pending with witnesses to be examined. Victim examined and resiled from initial statement. Prosecution relied on video recovery, semen detection, DNA match. Prior bail petition dismissed; co-accused granted bail.

Findings of Court:
No change in circumstances since prior bail rejection. Prima facie evidence connects petitioner to offence. Victim’s resiling insufficient for bail in ongoing trial of serious nature.

Issues: Whether subsequent bail petition maintainable without change in circumstances; effect of victim resiling post-trial commencement; impact of forensic and digital evidence; consideration of offence severity on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must record specific reasons for granting bail in subsequent applications despite prior rejection, requiring substantial changed circumstances. In serious offences, post-trial bail applications to be discouraged absent undue delay; strong prima facie evidence and severe punishment militate against release.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition details and prosecution's evidence summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments: false implication vs no change and dna evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. successive bail needs substantial change in circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. dna/video evidence prima facie case despite victim resiling. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. severe punishment weighs against bail grant. (Para 16 , 17)
6. petition dismissed; observations limited to bail disposal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 63 of 2025, dated 14.07.2025, registered at the Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64 , 126(2), 351(2), 351 (3) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66E and 67 of Information and Technology (IT)Act, 2000.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2025. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 10.11.2025, and the trial is pending adjudication in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. The petitioner and victim knew each other and desired to marry each other. The victim’s parents lodged a false FIR against the petitioner when they found out about the relationship. The victim was examined on 15.01.2026, and she has resiled from her earlier statement. 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 victim told her (the informant) that Deepak (the present petitioner) and Chaman stopped her when she was going to her home. She was taken to 'Nali' where the petitioner raped her, and Chaman prepared the video of the incident. The petitioner and Chaman threatened the victim that her video would be made viral and her family members would be killed if she complained to any person. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police checked the mobile phone and found the videos in it. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner and victim were medically examined. The video was shared with some people who told the victim's parents. As per the report of the analysis, human semen was detected in the underwear of the petitioner and the lower of the victim. The DNA profile obtained from the lower of the victim matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood of the petitioner. The Medical Officer issued the final report that there was no sign of vaginal intercourse, however, sexual assault could not be ruled out. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 04.04.2026. The co-accused, Chaman @ Goldy, was released on bail. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Anuj Gupta and Surjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent.

5. Mr Anuj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The victim has denied the prosecution's case, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, 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 had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court. The subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not stated any change in the circumstances. The report of the analysis shows that the petitioner’s DNA was found in the clothes of the victim, which prima facie establishes