Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Virender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2228 of 2025
Decided On : 03-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Rajinder Singh Gulati and Anil Kumar Manget, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Adv. General.

The court emphasized that the severity of the crime and potential interference with the investigation justify the denial of bail, aligning individual liberty with societal safety.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 65(1) and 137(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Bail application - Denial of bail based on heinous nature of the crime, potential for the accused to influence investigation if released, and insufficient grounds for liberty. (Paras 11-17)

(B) Bail - Legal principles governing bail assessment - Examination of evidence at this stage should not be exhaustive, focusing on prima facie case rather than detailed merits. The safety of society, especially concerning minor victims, weighs heavily in denying bail. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks bail after being accused of rape of a minor, asserting that he is falsely implicated and has dependents needing his care. The status report from police indicates serious charges supported by victim's statement and CCTV evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the serious nature of the allegations, the applicant's potential influence on the investigation, and the necessity to uphold societal safety, especially for vulnerable groups.

Issues: Main considerations were the gravity of the accusations, likelihood of interference with judicial processes, and the need for maintaining societal order versus individual liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the heinousness of the crime and the possibility of influencing witnesses required a cautious approach to granting bail, leading to a conclusion against the petitioner's release. The merits of the case should not be deeply examined at this stage.

Result: Petition for bail dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 85 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 65 (1) and 137 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present FIR. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and his family is suffering due to his incarceration. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The victim did not raise any hue and cry regarding the incident. The condition of the petitioner’s father is critical. The surgery on the petitioner’s wife’s uterus is necessary. The presence of the petitioner is necessary to look after his father and his wife. Gram Panchayat has also expressed its no objection to releasing the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the court may impose; 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 and her husband had gone to their work on 7th July 2025 at 8 AM. The informant’s son told her that the victim was crying in her room. The informant went to the room where the informant disclosed that the petitioner had dragged her inside the room and raped her. She identified the petitioner, who disclosed his name as Virender. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The victim and the petitioner were medically examined. Their samples were preserved. The police also seized the case property. Samples and case property have been sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), and the result of the analysis is awaited. The police also checked the CCTV footage and found the petitioner dragging the victim. The petitioner would influence the investigation and abscond in case of his release on bail. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rajendra Singh Gulati and Anil Kumar Manget, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Rajendra Singh Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. The petitioner’s father is ill, and the petitioner’s wife requires the removal of the uterus. The presence of the petitioner is necessary in his home. He will abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous crime. The investigation is continuing, and the petitioner would influence the investigation, if released on bail. Therefore, 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 record 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 granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)
“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is th