Bail granted in sexual assault case due to prosecutrix's questionable conduct on busy highway, lack of medical corroboration, prior acquaintance, past false complaints, and presumption of innocence amid trial delay.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely Raj Kumar, who is behind bars since 21.09.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.98 of 2025, dated 21.09.2025, under Sections 64 , 126 (2), 127 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘’), registered at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 21.09.2025, victim-prosecutrix (name held to protect her identity) lodged a compliant at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that on 20.09.2025, while she had gone to Patwar Ghar for some work and thereafter, had to go to Bilaspur, one car bearing registration No.HP-89-2590 being driven by the bail-petitioner came from Jhandutta side. Victim-prosecutrix alleged that she boarded the afore car near Matla and when it reached near Village Kohina, the bail-petitioner started behaving indecently. She alleged that once vehicle reached four lane road, bail-petitioner kept on insisting to take his vehicle to nearby jungle, which proposal was seriously opposed by the victim-prosecutrix, but yet she was taken forcibly to nearby jungle and thereafter, bail-petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes. On the basis of aforesaid complaint of the victim-prosecutrix, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and bail-petitioner is behind bars since 21.09.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Panwar states that bail-petitioner is accused of having committed heinous crime, as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that event he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities and cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix, as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected.

4. To the contrary Mr. Suresh Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the bail-petitioner, states that bare perusal of contents of FIR as well as statement of the victim-prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS itself suggests that victim-prosecutrix, of her own volition, joined the company of the bail-petitioner and thereafter, falsely implicated him to extract money. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, above named counsel invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-5 (colly) to demonstrate that in past also, victim-prosecutrix had filed false cases, some of which were compromised by her after receipt of certain amounts. While referring to MLC adduced on record by the prosecution, he states that otherwise also, there is no medical evidence to prove allegations of forcible sexual intercourse, if any, committed by the bail-petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix is 27 years old and she of