Bail granted in sexual assault case due to prolonged custody over 19 months, doubtful prima facie case with hostile key witnesses, trial delay, no antecedents, and Article 21 protections, with stringent conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner, Ganga Ram, who is in custody since 29.03.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024, under Sections 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmour, [HP].

FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:

2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is averred that an FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024 was registered under Section 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and 506 of Indian Penal Code but the petitioner has no role in the aforesaid accusation. It is averred that the petitioner had moved before this Court an application for anticipatory bail [Cr.MP(M) No.600 of 2024], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.3.2024, [Annexure P-1]. Thereafter, petitioner moved bail application on 09.07.2024 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court [Rape/POCSO] Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P, which was dismissed on 20.08.2024 [Annexure P-2]. Thereafter the petitioner preferred another bail application [Cr.MP(M) No.2229 of 2024], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.01.2025, [Annexure P-3]. It is further averred that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Delay in lodging the FIR has also been averred in the instant petition. It is averred that the bail petitioner is in custody for last about one year and eight months and the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, the prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that there are no past criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has furnished the undertaking that he shall not tamper with the evidence and shall abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In these circumstances, the instant application has been filed through his wife, praying for bail in instant case.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. Upon listing of instant bail application, notice was issued on 24.09.2025 to the State Authorities, with directions to file Status Report and likewise notice were issued to the Respondent No.2 and 3 [victim and complainant] and on their behalf Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, appeared who chose not to file any objection-reply to this application. 3(i). The petitioner [Ganga Ram] has furnished an undertaking to this Court on 30.10.2025 [by way of Cr.MP No. 4739 of 2025, that in case, the plea for bail is accepted then, the bail petitioner shall remain at his headquarters and shall neither visit his native Village [Gjwa] nor shall visit village Satahan i.e. place of residence of victim till the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim is recorded.

3(ii). In response to the undertaking dated 30.10.2025 State Authorities filed Reply-Affidavit dated 10.11.2025, stating that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may possibly influence the victim and/or the witnesses.

3(iii). Perusal of the Status Report dated 10.10.2025 and the Reply-Affidavit(s) dated 10.11.2025 indicate that the mother of the Respondent No.2-Victim submitted a complaint to the police on 24.03.2024, stating therein that the victim was