SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
TARA CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CRMPM/380/2026



Petitioner Advocates:Somesh Sharma ,Respondent Advocate: AG AG

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.380 of 2026

Date of Decision: 27.4.2026

_____________________________________________________________________

Tara Chand

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

…....Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Somesh Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional

Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.

C Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sh arma, J. (Oral)

hBail petitioner namely Tara Chand, who is 44 years old and is

behgind bars since 21.5.2025, has approached this court in the instant

proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 46 of 2025 dated

21.5.2025, registered at Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal

Pradesh, under Sections 64(1), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”).

::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 23:02:39 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2. Respondent-State has filed the status report under the

signature of SHO, PS Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who has

come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on

21.5.2025, complainant lodged a complaint at afore Police Station, alleging

therein that on 5.5.2025, her mother, who is 65 years old i.e. victim-

prosecutrix, was sexually assaulted a gainst her wish by the petitioner. She

alleged that her mother residers in the village alone and on the date of

alleged incident, bail petitioner forcibly entered the house and sexually

assaulted her against oher wishes. In the afore background, FIR detailed

herein above, camCe to be lodged against the petitioner on 21.5.2025 and

since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is

completeh and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner has

approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan

in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from

the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have

been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. He states that

there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that

::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 23:02:39 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

accused taking advantage of old age of victim-prosecutrix, .not only

extended threats to her, but also sexually assaulted her against her wishes,

as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail, deserves outright

rejection. While admitting factum with regard to recording of statement of

victim-prosecutrix, learned Additional Advocate General states that trial is

at an advance stage and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to

enlarge the petitioner on bail, because in that event, he may cause harm to

the victim-prosecutrix. r

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on roecord, this Court finds that allegedly incident took

place on 5.5.202C5, but report qua the same came to be lodged on

21.5.2025, by daughter of the victim-prosecutrix, who alleged that on the

date of hthe alleged incident, at about 10:00pm, bail petitioner forcibly

entered the room of the victim-prosecutrix, who was living alone at her

house, and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. He also

extended threats to victim-prosecutrix that if she discloses the afore fact to

anybody, she will face the consequences. Since medical of the victim-

prosecutrix was conducted after 15 days of the alleged incident, no cogent

and convincing evidence came forth qua the alleged incident of rape.

Statement of victim-prosecutrix has already been recorded in the trial

::: Down

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top