Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J
Deepak Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No: 160 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kulbhushan Khajuria
For the Respondents: P.K. Nadda

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Prolonged pre-trial detention, especially where prosecution evidence is weak or disputed and the trial delay is not caused by the accused, necessitates the grant of bail to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 354C and 506 - Information Technology Act - Section 67A - Regular bail - Prolongation of incarceration without trial - Principles for grant of bail - Constitutional right to personal liberty, Article 21, demands balance between liberty and societal interest - Bail is rule and jail is exception - Prolonged detention without trial despite completion of investigation and presentation of challan constitutes violation of right to speedy trial - Discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised with care, considering the absence of adversarial material regarding witness tampering or fleeing of the accused. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 12, 16)

(B) Rape - Consensual relationship vs. false premise of marriage - Distinction between breach of promise and false promise - Consent under misconception of fact requires proof that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception - When parties share a long-term consensual relationship, failure to fulfill marriage promise due to unforeseen events does not automatically translate to rape - Courts must exercise caution in examining whether sexual acts were induced by mala fide motives or genuine, albeit aborted, intentions. (Paras 7(i-a) to 7(i-e))

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a criminal case involving allegations of sexual assault, voyeurism, and criminal intimidation. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner engaged in unwarranted acts and circulated a video of the victim. The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual, the parties were engaged, and the allegations were a consequence of the relationship ending. The investigation is complete, the status reports show no forensic evidence of the alleged acts, and the trial is significantly delayed.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution’s case appeared prima facie doubtful. Forensic reports returned negative results for biological indicators typically associated with the alleged offense. The evidence suggested a consensual relationship with a promise to marry that did not materialize due to subsequent events, which does not constitute rape under settled legal principles. The petitioner has undergone long-term incarceration without a concluded trial, infringing upon his fundamental rights.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the nature of the offenses, considering the consensual nature of the relationship, the evidentiary gaps, and the prolonged period of pre-trial detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued incarceration is not punitive or preventative, and bail cannot be withheld as a mechanism to punish an accused before trial. Given the absence of evidence for witness tampering, the lack of forensic support for the prosecution, and the excessive delay in trial not attributable to the accused, the balance tilts in favor of liberty.

Result: Petition allowed; the accused is ordered to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.

Table of Content
1. summary of factual allegations and the petitioner's plea for bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. broad judicial parameters for granting or denying bail. (Para 6)
3. prima facie assessment of the case regarding the distinction between consensual relations and rape. (Para 7)
4. impact of prolonged incarceration and infringement of individual liberty under article 21. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. final reasoning, conclusion, and imposition of bail conditions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Bail petitioner, Deepak Sharma, who is in custody since 29.11.2023, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.61 of 2023, dated 29.11.2023, under Sections 376, 354C and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act registered at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, [HP].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Learned Counsel has set up a case that a false case has been registered against the bail petitioner in which he was arrested on 29.11.2023. It is further averred that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect him with alleged offence. It is averred that investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from him. It is averred that 15 PWs have been examined and even the deposition of PWs reveals that no case is made out against him. It is averred that the petitioner is facing incarceration for more than two years and four months and therefore, prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt at this stage is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further averred that the deposition of the Medical Officer and RFSL Reports do not support the prosecution case, which is clear from Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3. It is averred that the petitioner moved an application for bail [Bail Application No.236 of 2023] before Learned Special Judge, Chamba, which was dismissed on 21.02.2024 [Annexure P-4] and thereafter the petitioner filed another bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 325 of 2024, which was dismissed on 30.05.2024 [Annexure P-5] and this is the third bail application by the petitioner. It is averred that there is no likelihood of bail petitioner absconding or jumping over the bail and he undertakes to appear in the trial as and when required to do so. Bail petitioner has given an undertaking that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the case and shall not dissuade them in any manner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. It is further averred that bail petitioner is ready and willing to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds as may be directed by this Court. Instant bail petition has been filed through his mother, [namely, Smt. Brejna] with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. In the instant bail application, notice was issued by this Court on 06.03.2026 directing the State Authorities to file the Status Report and notice was issued to victim, with direction to file objection, if any, to the claim for bail. Despite service of notice, the victim chose not to participate in instant proceedings. Pursuant to orders dated 6.3.2026, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 17.03.2026 and the copy of the same was supplied to Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner, who prayed for time to go through the Status Report and to make submissions. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 07.04.2026, when, Learned State Counsel, was permitted to file Fresh Status Report which was filed on 09.04.2026, when at the request of Learned Counsel for petitioner the matter was adjourned for 21.04.2026 on which date the matter was finally heard.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN STATUS REPORT(S):

4. Status Report(s) dated 29.11.2023 and Fresh Status

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARanjan Sharma, JDeepak Sharma – AppellantVersusState Of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr.MP(M) No: 160 of 2026

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Prolonged pre-trial detention, especially where prosecution evidence is weak or disputed and the trial delay is not caused by the accused, necessitates the grant of bail to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J
Deepak Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No: 160 of 2026