IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MPM No. 2786 of 2025

Reserved on: 27.11.2025

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

Munish Soni .…...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

…....

Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No

For the Petitioner : Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent- : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,

State Additional Advocate General,

with HC Sunny Sharma, IO, PS

Haroli, District Una,

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.97/25 dated 16.06.2025 registered at Police Station Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 78, 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,

2000 (for short “IT Act”).

_________________________

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

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner and the informant were in a consensual relationship. The petitioner refused to meet the. informant’s demand of ₹ 12,00,000/-, and she filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for seeking pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, on 24.06.2025. The petitioner filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP (M) No.1526/25 and was dismissed on 14.07.2025. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition as SLP (Cr.) No.11295/2025. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the petition on 04.11.2025 with liberty to approach the Competent Court for the grant of bail. The petitioner subsequently filed a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was Hdismissed on 24.11.2025. The status report shows that the police have not sought the custodial interrogation. Two persons were found to be involved in the commission of the offence. The Instagram ID was being operated by one minor and the petitioner. The status report mentioned that the photographs were sent to Nikhil Sharma, but this statement is incorrect because the Internet Protocol Detail Records (IPDR) data only shows the ID of the person using the social media platform and does not confirm the sending of the material. Learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the bail petition by accepting the contents of the status report as. correct. The petitioner had a consensual relationship with the informant. He had paid various amounts to her from time to time. The informant demanded ₹12,00,000/- which the petitioner was unable to pay; hence, she filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The photographs do not show the petitioner. Petitioner’s mobile phone and Laptop have already been seized by the police. There are material contradictions in the FIR and the statements. The petitioner is married, and his wife delivere d a baby. She requires the petitioner’s support. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him, hence, the petition.

3. The State filed a status report, asserting that the victim was in a relationship with the petitioner. She went to a room with the petitioner, where he clicked her photographs. He started threatening the victim to upload her photographs on social media. The victim also talked to the petitioner’s wife, but she did not take any action. The petitioner uploaded the victim’s photographs on social media. Police investigated the matter and seized 10 screenshots, copies of the visitor’s register of Sahil Plaza Hotel, the petitioner’s mobile phone and his laptop. The petitioner joined the investigation as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. His medical. examination was conducted. His blood sample was preserved. The Medical Officer issued a report that there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner was unable to perform sexual intercourse. The mobile phone and the laptop have been sent to RFSL Dhara