Manoj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

1 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.2126 of 2025 Reserved on:- 26.09.2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 Manoj Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the applicant	:	Ms. Anita Jalota, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
		Advocate General with Mr.
		Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna
		Patial, Deputy Advocate
		General, for respondents No.1 and 2/State.
		Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate,
		vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge

¶8

Applicant-Manoj Kumar, apprehending his

¶9

arrest, in Case FIR No.146 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the BNS), with Police Station, Dharampur, Tehsil Solan, District Solan, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS).

¶10

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

¶11

2 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶12

By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought, by the applicant, to direct the IO/Police of Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above mentioned FIR.

¶13

According to the applicant, the FIR against him has been lodged, on the false and concocted facts with an ulterior motive to humiliate and harass him.

¶14

According to the applicant, he has pleaded that he is a young man of 24 years of age and working as a Helper with the Operator of JCB machine, in District Solan. Respondent No.3 and applicant came in contact with each other, for the first time, through Instagram in the month of June, 2024, whereas, respondent No.3, introduced herself to be the daughter of big businessman and convinced the applicant to provide regular employment to him.

¶15

It is the further case of the applicant that respondent No.3 informed him that her father wants to get her marriage against her wishes and according to her, if this happens, she will commit suicide. Thereafter, the applicant had blocked her mobile number.

¶16

3 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶17

According to the applicant, thereafter respondent No.3, contacted him from some another unknown mobile number, on 14.07.2024 and informed him, she had left the house of her parents and reached at Shimla, sought for help, upon which, applicant came to Shimla and met her near Dhalli tunnel and persuaded her to return back, but, all in vain. Due to her pressure, applicant took her with him to his parents house and introduced her to his parents and relatives and explained the entire facts. They had also persuaded the complainant to go back to her parents house, as, they were not ready to marry her under those circumstances. But, respondent No.3 refused and insisted upon to solemnize marriage with applicant, failing which, she has again threatened to commit suicide.

¶18

He has further pleaded that on 17.07.2024, his parents and relatives insisted upon the applicant to take respondent No.3, to her parents house, but, respondent No.3 threatened that if she will be taken to her father’s house, she will commit suicide, upon which, the applicant took her to Paonta Sahib, where, he was working and they stayed in a rented house, where, respondent No.3 coerced the applicant to maintain physical relations with her.

¶19

4 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶20

However, the applicant coerced upon her from such activities, unless, they got married with each other, for which, she agreed.

¶21

In view of said arrangement, the applicant called his cousin Reena Devi, his friend Rajesh Thakur and his wife and another cousin Reetika Chauhan, so that the marriage could be solemnized in their presence. When, they reached at Paonta Sahib, the documents of their marriage were being prepared, but, respondent No.3, fled away from there. Thereafter, she has switched off her mobile phone. Later on, the applicant received a telephonic call from her, who apprised the applicant that she didn't want to marry and she will think over it, after 6-7 months, and on this assurance, she came back. Thereafter, the complainant and applicant shifted to Dharampur. The applicant got her employed with a shop at Dharampur, where, she had also started creating trouble for owners and customers, as such, her services were terminated, after one month. Due to her furious behaviour, on the advice of the employer, the applicant got checked the complainant from Psychiatrist in IGMC Shimla, on 02.07.2025, but, the complainant stopped taking medicines prescribed by the Doctor.

¶22

5 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶23

Thereafter on 05.08.2025, as per further stand of the applicant, complainant contacted her father and expressed her intention to go back to her father’s house, upon which, applicant took her to her father’s house on 07.08.2025, but, she refused to stay there and again started to create hue and cry, upon which, the father of the complainant impressed the applicant to take her to Dharampur with the assurance, that he will himself come to Dharampur after 2-3 days.

¶24

It is the further case of the applicant that father of respondent No.3, with his friend visited Dharampur, on 11.08.2025 and after realizing the mental condition of the complainant, they took her to IGMC Shimla on 16.08.2025, for treatment in Psychiatric Unit.

¶25

He has further pleaded that on 07.08.2025, the applicant had gone to Nirmand, then, he was informed that the respondent No.3 had left the house and solemnized marriage with one Dola Ram.

¶26

It is the further case of the applicant that when the father of the complainant and his friend stayed with the applicant, they had compelled the applicant to solemnize marriage with the complainant, otherwise, the applicant has

¶27

6 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶28

to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to her father, failing which, the applicant has been threatened to be implicated, in a false rape case.

¶29

According to the applicant, on 18.08.2025 at about 10:00 AM, father of the complainant demanded Rs.5,000/- from the applicant, which the applicant had paid after arranging the same from his employer Kuldeep Sharma.

¶30

On the basis of the above facts, applicant has pleaded that the FIR is nothing, but, an act of revenge by the complainant.

¶31

On all these facts, Ms. Anita Jalota, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any directions given to the police under Section 482 of BNSS.

¶32

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

¶33

When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 30.08.2025, disclosing therein, that Zero FIR No.02 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025, under Section 69 of BNS was received, in Police Station, Dharampur, mentioning

¶34

7 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶35

therein, that the complainant along with her father appeared before the police and moved a complaint, that on 14.07.2024, she met with a person namely Manoj Kumar (applicant) at Shimla, as, he was already known to her through face-book (Social Media App). On that day, the complainant had gone to village of applicant in District Sirmaur. When they reached at the house of Manoj Kumar (applicant), his family members had put forward certain conditions, upon which, they will solemnize her marriage with Manoj Kumar (applicant). The complainant allegedly refused to abide by those conditions, upon which, his family members threw her out from their house. Thereafter, Manoj Kumar (applicant) took her to Dharampur, as, he used to operate the machine there, where, he had obtained in a room on rent. Manoj Kumar (applicant) developed a physical relations with her and they stayed, as, husband and wife. After eight months, quarrel had started between them.

¶36

17.1. It is the further case of the complainant that Manoj Kumar (applicant) and his family members insisted her to live with younger brother of Manoj and to take care of his child, as, his wife had left his company. She has further

¶37

8 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶38

alleged that applicant made physical relations with her for about 13 months, continuously. Thereafter, the complainant insisted upon him to solemnize Court marriage, but, he put off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 02.07.2025, applicant-Manoj Kumar took her forcibly to Shimla Hospital, where, doctor prescribed some medicines, which, she had taken for a week. Due to those medicines, her condition, deteriorated, upon which, she had stopped taking the medicines.

¶39

17.2. On 11.08.2025, the complainant contacted her father and apprised them, that if, something happened wrong with her, then, Manoj Kumar (applicant) and his family members will be responsible for that, as Manoj Kumar (applicant) had beaten him, on many occasions and mentally tortured her and also gave her overdose of the medicine. On 12.08.2025, complainant insisted upon the applicant to solemnize Court marriage, however, his father had objected the said proposal by saying that their god does not permit them to solemnize the Court marriage, then further assured her to solemnize Court marriage on 13.08.2025. On that day, they reached at Solan Court, but, father and uncle do not reach there and Manoj (applicant)

¶40

9 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶41

also fled away from there. They had gone to Police Station, Dharampur, from where, a call was made to the father of Manoj Kumar (applicant) and proposal of compromise was put. Thereafter, they had gone to their rented quarter and Manoj Kumar (applicant) assured her to solemnize Court marriage within three-four days.

¶42

17.3. It is the further case of the complainant that the applicant allegedly assured her that he will visit her house and thereafter, they will solemnize the marriage, upon which, the complainant allegedly called him, but, the applicant had not talked her and blocked her mobile number. Thereafter, the complainant called his father, who threatened her not to call him, again, as they are planning to solemnize his second marriage. They have also threatened the complainant that they are influential persons and she could not harm them. He also disclosed to her that her medical prescription slip is with them and they will get her declared as mental. Manoj Kumar (applicant) also threatened her that neither, she nor, her father could harm them and lastly proclaimed that he will not solemnize the marriage, as she is not liked by his family members.

¶43

10 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶44

17.4. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against the applicant, upon which, the police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery is swung into motion.

¶45

17.5. On 28.08.2025, victim, along with her father appeared before the Police. She was taken to CHC Dharampur for medico legal examination, but, due to the non-availability of the lady Doctor, her medical examination could not be conducted there. Thereafter, her statement under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded. The spot was visited at the instance of the complainant and physical evidence, so collected, was also taken into possession.

¶46

17.6. On 29.08.2025, victim was medico legally examined and MLC along with physical evidence, so collected, was handed over to the Police and was taken into possession. The statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 183 of BNSS was got recorded, by producing her before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli. Thereafter, the provisions of Section 351(2) of BNS was also added, in this case.

¶47

11 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶48

17.7. On the basis of the said stand of the police, interim protection was granted to the applicant and matter has been adjourned for 05.09.2025.

¶49

17.8. On 05.09.2025, respondent No.3 also put appearance, through his counsel and police has also filed the status report. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 12.09.2025.

¶50

17.9. On 12.09.2025 matter had been adjourned for 19.09.2025. On that day, police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.09.2025, the applicant has joined the investigation and he was medico legally examined at CHC Dharampur. The physical evidence, so collected, on the spot was sent to SFSL Junga.

¶51

17.10. No other case was found to be registered against the applicant.

¶52

17.11. In this case, respondent No.3 has also filed objections. The objections are mainly based upon the stand, as taken by respondent No.3, in the FIR, in question.

¶53

17.12. Apart from this, she has pleaded that the applicant had assured respondent No.3, to solemnize Court marriage and for the time being, according to her case, on 20.08.2024, on the occasion of Karwa Chauth, applicant

¶54

12 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶55

had performed certain rituals including putting the Mangalsutra in her neck in the presence of their neighbours, namely Shailesh, Sita, Savitri Gupta etc. According to her, he has backed out from his commitment and sexually exploited the prosecutrix for the last more than one year.

¶56

17.13. Apart from this, she has also pleaded that the applicant had threatened her by sending the messages from his Instagram ID.

¶57

On the basis of the objections, Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the complainant (respondent No.3) has prayed that the bail application may kindly be dismissed.

¶58

The objections have been replied by the applicant, by filing a reply, in which, he has taken a plea that respondent No.3 has already married one Dola Ram on 30.06.2022. In order to buttress his contentions, he has annexed the photocopy of the affidavit, allegedly sworn-in by respondent No.3, before the Executive Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, in which, respondent No.3, allegedly intends to marry Dola Ram son of Pawan Kumar on 30.06.2022.

¶59

13 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶60

As per the stand taken by the complainant (respondent No.3), she came in contact with applicant, through Social Medial App and thereafter, respondent No.3 allegedly had gone with the applicant to his village District Sirmaur, where, they have allegedly agreed for the marriage of the applicant with respondent No.3, however, on certain conditions, for which, the complainant allegedly refused and she was allegedly thrown out by the parents of the applicant. Thereafter, she had gone with applicant to Dharampur, where, they remained in a rented accommodation, as husband and wife, for about 8 months. 21. It is the further case that both of them had made physical relations, during that period. Considering the said stand, this Court is of the view that it would be proved, during the trial, whether, the physical relations were developed by the applicant with respondent No.3, on the pretext of marriage or the same was a consensual relationship, as according to the documents, produced by the applicant along reply to the objections, respondent No.3, has solemnized the marriage with one Dola Ram on 30.06.2022, whereas, she came in contact with the applicant on 14.07.2024, through Social Media App.

¶61

14 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶62

Except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant, as such, presumption of innocence is still available to the applicant.

¶63

Another fact, which has rightly been highlighted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that it is the stand of respondent No.3 herself that in the presence of their neighbours, applicant had performed certain rituals, including putting the Mangalsutra, in her neck and in the prescription slip annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, she has been referred to as wife of Manoj Kumar (applicant).

¶64

Respondent No.3, along with objections, has also annexed the printout of the photographs, depicting therein, the fact that the girl in the photograph has been shown to be wearing ritual bangles, vermilion is being on her forehead and the applicant is putting Mangalsutra, in her neck. From this fact, the applicant is able to make out a case of consensual relationship.

¶65

So far as, the alleged threatening messages forwarded by the applicant allegedly to respondent No.3, are concerned, for that reasonable conditions, can be imposed, in case, the interim order is made absolute.

¶66

15 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶67

Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Sirmaur, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial.

¶68

Consequently, interim order, dated 30.08.2025 passed in the application, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, arising out of FIR No.146 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025, registered under Sections 69 of BNS, with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., subject to his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶69

This order, however, shall be subject to the

¶70

following conditions:-

¶71

a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate applications;

¶72

b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

¶73

c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and

¶74

16 ( 2025:HHC:34331 )

¶75

d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

¶76

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall

¶77

not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶78

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by any of the applicant.

¶79

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶80

October 10, 2025 (subhash)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Verma Electricals and Sons Vs Rajdhani Electricles

Kulvinder Gill Vs State of Hp

Chottu Vs State of Hp

Sohan Singh Vs State of Hp

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ritesh Vs State of Hp