IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 2475 of 2023 Reserved on: 01.11.2023 Date of Decision: 10.11.2023 Parveen Chauhan .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : rMr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Rattan Lal, WPS Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the Women Police Station, Baddi for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) vide FIR no.27 of 2023 dated 01.08.2023. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in the custody. The petitioner would

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court; hence, the petition.

2. The petition was opposed by filing a StaPtus Report asserting that the victim complained to her gra.ndmother on 01.08.2023 regarding the pain in her stomach. She was taken to the Medical Officer, who disclosed that the victim was pregnant. The matter was reported to the police. The victim disclosed that she had resided with the petitioner for about five to six months from February 2023 till 28.7.2023 and the petitioner had repeatedly raped her. The petitioner was arrested. The petitioner and her mother declined to undergo the test related to the pregnancy. The challan has been prepared and presented before theh Court on 25.09.2023. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, District Solan, H.P.

3. I have heard Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent.

4. Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner intends to marry the victim. The complaint was not made by the victim but by the Medical Officer, which shows the consent of the victim. The challan has been prepared before the Court and no useful 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.

5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence and he should not be released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @

Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-

12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations; P (b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matt