Nand Lal Vs State of Hp and Another — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Nand Lal Vs State of Hp and Another — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions: (i) not intimidating witnesses or influencing evidence; (ii) attending every hearing without unnecessary adjournments; (iii) not leaving his address for seven continuous days without informing the SHO, Police Station and Trial Court; (iv) surrendering any passport; (v) furnishing mobile number and social media contacts and abiding by summons/notices via SMS/WhatsApp/social media, with changes intimated within five days. Violation entitles prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. Copy of order to be sent to Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Kishanpura at Nalagarh and the Trial Court by FASTER. Observations have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Nand Lal), arrested in FIR No. 12 of 2025 registered under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita at Women Police Station, Baddi, should be released on regular bail.

Court's answer

The victim is a major, and she did not state specifically that sexual relations with the petitioner were maintained against her will; therefore, prima facie, the material on record is not sufficient to detain the petitioner behind bars.

Ratio / Principle

The charge sheet has been filed and the matter is listed for recording prosecution witnesses' statements, showing the investigation is complete and the custody of the petitioner is not required.

Key takeaways

Since it is not clear at this stage whether the relationship between the victim and the petitioner was consensual or forcible, the State's submission that the nature of the crime is heinous cannot be accepted as a ground to refuse bail.ratio¶¶51
The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Bilaspur (not contradicted in the status report), so he has a permanent residence and there is no chance of his absconding.ratio¶¶52
The apprehension that the petitioner will influence witnesses and compromise the fair trial can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous — Regular Bail (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Rakesh Kainthla J.) — Petition for regular bail in FIR No. 12 of 2025 (Women PS Baddi, Distt. Solan) under Ss. 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) BNS, alleging that the petitioner raped the adult victim after co-accused Onkar Singh held out a promise of her marriage to the petitioner. Applying the bail parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem, Ramratan v. State of M.P. and Shabeen Ahmed v. State of U.P., the Court held: the victim is a major and did not specifically state that relations with the petitioner were against her will; no DNA of the petitioner was found in her FSL samples; the charge sheet has been filed, the investigation is complete and further custody serves no purpose; the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Bilaspur with no chance of absconding; and the apprehension of witness tampering can be met by conditions. The plea that the crime was heinous was rejected at this stage since it was unclear whether the relationship was consensual or forcible. Bail allowed on bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions (non-intimidation, attendance, travel intimation, passport surrender, mobile/social media disclosure); observations confined to bail disposal and of no bearing on merits.