Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Baby Rani @ Bebi Rani @ Baby Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.1624 of 2025
For the applicant:Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, SI Bir Singh
Bail granted due to lack of necessity for continued custody and pre-trial punishment concerns.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application - Applicant seeks release on bail during trial for charges under Sections 196(2), 197(2), 353(2), and 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - No previous criminal history - Judicial custody deemed unnecessary as trial will take time. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Judicial Custody - The court emphasized that continued detention without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of posting derogatory content against the Indian Army, leading to her arrest and judicial custody since 09.05.2025. Previous bail applications were denied. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's continued custody was unnecessary given the status of the trial and her lack of prior criminal history. (Paras 11-12)
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and her circumstances. (Paras 10-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that keeping the applicant in custody without trial would constitute pre-trial punishment and allowed bail under certain conditions. (Paras 15-16)
Result: Bail application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the applicant's situation and prior applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding necessity for bail. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on judicial custody and pre-trial punishment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's decision to grant bail with conditions. (Para 15) |
| 5. conclusion and order regarding bail conditions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the applicant : Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, assisted by SI Bir Singh, Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), applicant-Baby Rani has sought her release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of case, FIR No.56 of 2025, dated 08.05.2025, registered under Sections 196 (2), 197(2), 353(2) & 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, she is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned, in the application and has falsely been implicated, in this case.
3. According to her, investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and nothing is to be recovered from her or at her instance.
4. The applicant had earlier tried her luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 15.05.2025.
5. Thereafter, she had filed similar application, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1283 of 2025, before this Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 17.06.2025.
6. According to her, charge sheet, in the present case, has been filed and she has no previous criminal history. The applicant has further asserted that she is in judicial custody, in this case, from 09.05.2025 and trial of the case will take sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping her in judicial custody.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
9. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 08.05.2025, complainant Bhisham Sharma, moved a complaint, before the police mentioning therein, the following facts:-
“Regarding posting of Pakistan’s favouring Slogans.
Sir, With due respect, we the youth of Kandaghat want to bring in your kind notice that Baby Khan, running stiching business in Kandaghat is continuously posting in favour of Pakistan army and disrespecting Indian Army in her posts. We want that strict action should be taken against her as her Post is demotivating Indian Army and common people of India. She is continuously indulged in such type of activities and her son is also arrested several times in case of drug peddling. We request you that you will take strict action against her.”
9.1. On the basis of the above facts, the police has registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. On 08.05.2025, applicant-Baby Khan was associated, in the investigation and on inquiry, she has disclosed that from 07.05.2025 to 08.05.2025, she herself from her mobile phone, uploaded the video and also shared other video post, on the face-
book ID of Baby Khan, in favour of Pakistan and also shared the videos showing the Indian Flag in a derogatory manner.
9.2. Thereafter, the mobile phone of the applica
