IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 2790 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Date of Decision:09.12.2025 _______________________________________________________________

Arvind Thakur ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent Coram:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.

For the Respondent- : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, State Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge:

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.31/25, dated 14.11.2025, registered at Woman Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 (2) (m) and Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was in a friendly relationship with the victim in the year 2020. He exploited her sexually for two years on the false pretext of marriage. The petitioner used to stay in the _________________________

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

room of the victim whenever he would come on leave from his duty. He had promised to marry her in the presence of her brother, sister and friends. The victim subseque.ntly came to know that the petitioner was getting married to someone else. The victim went to Renuka Fair on 01.02.2025. The petitioner accompanied the victim to her room. The victim asked the petitioner to leave as he was already engaged. However, he stayed in the room of the victim and had forcible sexual relations with her. The petitioner blocked the victim’s phone number. The victim tried to contact the petitioner, but she was unable to do so; hence, she filed a false FIR against the petitione r. The parties have been friends since 2020. The petitioner never promised to marry the victim; rather, he made it clear to her that he would marry as per the choice of his Hparents. The petitioner performed his arranged marriage on

20.10.2025 and informed the victim about it. The victim performed sexual intercourse with the petitioner between 01.11.2025 and 05.11.2025 despite knowing that the petitioner was engaged to someone else. The victim did not make any protest. A false complaint was made by the victim to extract money from the petitioner. The victim was active on Facebook, and she was posting reels while singing and dancing. She was not suffering any emotional trauma after coming to know about the petitioner’s marriage. The petitioner is a respectable member of society. He is serving. in the Indian Army, and his arrest would adversely affect his career. The petitioner is 31 years of age, and the victim is 30 years old. She knows about her welfare. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. I have heard Mr Vivek Singh Attri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

4. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature, and it is a case of love gone sour.

HThe victim made false allegations against the petitioner when she found that the petitioner was getting married somewhere else. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken to be correct, do not constitute the commission of the cognizable offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jothiragawan versus State 2025: INSC:347, Jaspal Singh Kaural VS State of NCT of Delhi & Anr SLP No.4007 of 2024, decided on 07.04.2025 and Prithivi Rajan vs State SLP (Crl.) No.12663/2022, decided on 20.01.2025 in support of his submission.

5. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitte