IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 1729 of 2025

Reserved on: 28.11.2025

Date of Decision: 04.12.2025

_______________________________________________________________

Onkar .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh a nd Anr ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.

For the Respondent- State : Mr. Jitender Sharma,

Additional Advocate

General for respondent

No.1

Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for

respondent No.2/victim.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking the grant of regular bail in FIR No.12/25, dated 19.02.2025, registered at Women Police Station, Baddi, District

_________________________

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

Shimla, under Sections 64 (2)(f), 64 (2)(m) and 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was residing with her mother. The petitioner used to visit the victim’s room. He raped her anfd threatened to kill her in case the incident was revealed to anyone. He promised to solemnise the victim’s marriage with his nephew, Nand Lal. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police obtained samples, but no blood or human semen was detected; therefore, no DNA profile was conducted. The petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest, which is a violation of his constitutional rights. The FIR was lodged in the year 2025 after a delay of nine months. The story propounded by the victim is false and without any basis. The police have filed the charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police, stating that the petitioner had raped her. He also threatened the victim to kill her in case the incident was revealed to any person. Subsequently, he promised to marry the victim to Nand Lal. Nand Lal also raped the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim and the petitioner were medically examined, and as per the report of the Medical Officer, there was nothing to sugg.est that the petitioner was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The samples were preserved and sent to FSL; however, no DNA was found in the samples of the victim. The police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on

01.09.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. The victim has also filed a reply opposing the bail petition by asserting that she is under immense threat from the petitioner. Petitioner would intimidate her and tamper with the evidence if released on bail. The petitioner had threatened to kill the victim, due to which she could not narrate the incident to any person. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State and Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim.

6. Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on vague allegations. No particulars of the time and place were given. The FIR was filed belatedly. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Cou.rt. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose upon him; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State, submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence. The statements of the witnesses a