Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2309 of 2025
For the Appellant:Applicant in person, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Mr. Abhishek Verma
For the Respondent:Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Bail cannot be viewed as punishment; therefore, interim bail granted based on no criminal antecedents and investigative integrity.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 75, 78 & 79 - Bail application - Applicant, falsely implicated in a case under BNS, applied for bail apprehending arrest - Court considered the lack of prior convictions and conditional bail granting - Reiterated that bail cannot be rejected as punishment but should be governed by the principle of availability for trial. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 17, 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The court disallowed custodial interrogation, emphasizing investigation's integrity and ensuring no flight risk of the applicant is present. (Paras 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant claimed innocence in a case involving allegations of harassment from multiple complainants leading to the FIR. The police asserted a robust investigation process with multiple witness statements and ongoing inquiries against the applicant.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the applicant shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions specified to ensure his presence and non-interference with the investigation.
Issues: The primary issue was whether to grant bail considering the nature of allegations and the applicant’s background. The court evaluated the balance between the seriousness of allegations and the applicant's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The importance of not treating bail applications as punitive was emphasized, asserting that rejection of bail would function as an undue punishment without due process prior to an actual trial.
Result: The bail application is allowed subject to conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks bail amidst allegations. (Para 4) |
SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2309 of 2025 Reserved on:- 24.09.2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 Pradeep Kumar H …Applicant Versus State of H.P. f …..Respondent Coram: o The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for repo rting?
For the applicant : Applicant in person, with Mr.
Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Chouhan and Mr.
Abhishek Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Inspector, Priyanka Chauhan, SHO, Police Station, Renukaji, (Incharge SIT).
Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Pradeep Kumar, apprehending his arrest, in Case FIR No.103 of 2025, dated 07.09.2025, registered under Sections 75 , 78 & 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the BNS ), with Police Station, Sadar Nahan, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS). .
2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought, by the applicaHnt, to direct the IO/Police of Police Station, Sadar Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above mentioned FIR.
3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
4. According to the applicant, he is working as a Security Guard, on outsource basis, with Dr.Y.S. Parmar, Government Medical College and Hospital, Nahan and was performing his duties, honestly and diligently. The FIR in gquestion, is stated to be registered against him, falsely and he ihas termed the case, as alleged against him, in the FIR, as false and concocted one.
5. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving the similar application, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2025.
6. It is the further case of the applicant that he is having deep roots, in the society and having no crimi.nal antecedents.
7. On all these facts, Mr. DeepakH Kaushal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Aditya Chouhan and Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocates, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any directions given to the police under Section 482 of BNSS.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.09.2025, complainant made a complaint to Police Station, Sadar Nahan, mentioning gtherein the following facts:-
i “It is submitted that the Internal Complaints H Committee (under POSH Act, 2013) of Dr.
YSPGMC, Nahan, has received written complaints against Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Security Guard (Suspended), Dr. YSPGMC, Nahan, regarding his inappropriate behaviour towards interns of this institution (Copies attached), As per the statements recorded from the complainants, prima facie it appears to be a case of sexual harassment. Therefore, you are kindly requested to register the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. Sh. Pradeep Kumar. S/o Sh. Om Prakash. Vill. Dhaun, PO Rama, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur. HP, under the relevant provisions of law and take necessary action in the matter.”
9.1. Apart from the said complaint, another complaint made by 20 other female Doctors were also received. .
9.2. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swHung into motion. 9.3. On 10.09.2025, spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Photographs were also clicked. The statements of the 14 victims were recorded, under Section 180 of BNSS. On 15.09.2025, the statements of the other witnesses were
