Munish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Applicant Manish has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) in case FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 12.2.2025, registered

¶15

under Sections 69 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

¶16

22025:HHC:9098

¶17

Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS”), with Women Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶18

By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case, as, he is apprehending his arrest, in the said case.

¶19

Relief, as claimed in the application, has been sought on the ground that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicate in this case.

¶20

According to the applicant, he is permanent resident of District Mandi, as such, he is having deep roots in the society, and in case, he is arrested in a false case, it will ruin his reputation, in the society.

¶21

The applicant has termed the case, as mentioned, in the FIR, as false, and according to him, he is ready to abide by any conditions, to be imposed, by

¶22

this Court, in case, any order is passed, under Section 482 BNSS, in this case.

¶23

32025:HHC:9098

¶24

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS.

¶25

On the basis of above, applicant has sought the relief, as claimed in the present bail application.

¶26

On 17.2.2025, the interim protection was awarded to the applicant and the case was ordered to be listed on 28.2.2025. On that day, the Police filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 12.2.2025, one Zero FIR No. 01 of 2025, was received from Women Police Station, Hamirpur, in Women Police Station, Bilaspur, H.P. for registration of the FIR. The complainant, aged 26 years, moved the complaint before the SHO, Women Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P., disclosing therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the application and married to one ‘X’

¶27

42025:HHC:9098

¶28

(name withheld). However, the said marriage has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce.

¶29

8.1 According to her, accused Manish Kumar (applicant) is known to her, from the last four years, as they met through Facebook (Social Media app). Thereafter, they used to talk to each other, on phone. She has further alleged in the complaint that both of them were interested to marry each other and they had also disclosed this fact to their respective family members. However, mother of the applicant is stated to have not agreed to the said proposal. However, applicant and the complainant remained in touch with each other, on phone.

¶30

8.2 It has further been alleged in the complaint that in the month of July, 2024, applicant had called the complainant to Jahu fair, for the first time, upon which, the complainant had gone to Jahu fair to meet the applicant.

¶31

52025:HHC:9098

¶32

8.3 It is the further story of the complainant that 2-3 days thereafter, Manish called her again to Gagan Hotel, Ghumarwin, upon which, she went there and after talking to each other, returned to her native place. 3-4 days thereafter, the applicant had again called her to the same Hotel, and disclosed to one of his friends that he wants to marry the complainant and put the wedding garland in her neck. Thereafter, he took the complainant to Ghumarwin, where accused compelled her to be physical with him, upon which, she refused. On this, applicant is stated to have threatened the complainant that in case she does not make physical relations with him, he will not marry her. Thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, applicant forcibly ravished her.

¶33

8.4 It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, applicant Manish stopped attending her calls and refused to marry her. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against him, upon which, the Police of Women Police Station, Bilaspur, H.P. registered the FIR.

¶34

62025:HHC:9098

¶35

8.5 The complainant was taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P. for medico-legal examination, where she refused to get herself medico legally examined.

¶36

8.6 Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Deep Chand. On 13.2.2025, the prosecutrix was associated in the investigation. Her statement was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. Further investigation was entrusted to ASI Mukesh Kumar.

¶37

8.7 It has further been mentioned in the status report that on 18.2.2025, applicant Manish Kumar appeared before the Police, alongwith the order passed

¶38

by this Court. Thereafter, he was also medico legally examined. Physical evidence, so collected, was handed over to the Police.

¶39

8.8 Thereafter, on 20.2.2025, the prosecutrix was produced before the Court of learned JMFC, Ghumarwin, where her statement was recorded, under

¶40

72025:HHC:9098

¶41

Section 183 BNSS. The spot map was prepared. The room, where they allegedly had stayed, was also visited and spot map of the room was prepared. As per the record, from 1.10.2024 to 2.10.2024, applicant and the complainant stayed in the said Hotel. The applicant had allegedly given the agreement of their marriage to the prosecutrix, which was produced, before the Police and was taken into possession. Thereafter, the Police has added Sections 69 and 351 (1) of the BNS in the FIR, whereas, Section 64 of the BNS was removed.

¶42

8.9. The following facts have been highlighted for the dismissal of the application:

¶43

i) The applicant, on the pretext of marriage, took the prosecutrix to Hotel, at Ghumarwin, and ravished her;

¶44

ii) In case, the interim order is made absolute, he may again coerce the witnesses and allure them to depose in his favour; iii) Act of the applicant is substantiated from the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 183 of BNSS; and

¶45

iv) In case, the accused is released on bail, he may not be available for trial, as the investigation is still going on. 9. In this case, the prosecutrix/complainant

¶46

also put appearance and filed objections. In her objections, she has reiterated the factual position, as

¶47

82025:HHC:9098

¶48

has been mentioned in the FIR. She has alleged that she never agreed to solemnize marriage with the applicant, whereas, he tried to convince her for marriage.

¶49

9.1 It is the further case of the complainant that the applicant made various proposals, which she refused. Thereafter, the complainant had started making distance from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly pressurized her for marriage by saying that he is left with no option, but to commit suicide.

¶50

9.2 The complainant has further relied upon the photographs, annexed with the application, in which, accused had put a number of tablets in his mouth by stating that these are the tablets of poison. According to the complainant, on seeing his photographs, she was left with no option, but to call him.

¶51

9.3 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate, appearing for the complainant that the bail application may kindly be dismissed.

¶52

92025:HHC:9098

¶53

In this case, the prosecutrix had refused to undergo medico legal examination, when she was taken by the Police to District Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P. This fact cannot be ignored, at this stage, while deciding the question of bail. Non-allowance of medical examination by the alleged rape victim, raises negative inference, against her. The view of this Court is guided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, “State of

¶54

Himachal Pradesh versus Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu”, Cr. Appeal No. 2097 of 2014, decided on, 20.2.2025. Relevant paragraph-10 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:

¶55

“10. The afore-extracted portions make it amply clear that the prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events. It is a well-settled proposition of law that non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape victim raises negative inferences against them. We cannot ascribe any good reason to the complete lack of assistance that the complainants tendered to the authorities, apart from their contradictory stances before the Court. We are further doubtless in this regard as the High Court, while discussing the prosecutrix’s testimony, has come to the invariable conclusion that she was not mentally unsound – given

¶56

102025:HHC:9098

¶57

that she was able to clearly comprehend the question and answer during the cross-examination.”

¶58

So far as the complainant’s allegations, including the claim, regarding ravishing her, on the promise of marriage, is concerned, the said fact will be proved during trial.

¶59

The applicant has joined investigation and there is nothing in the status report, which has been filed by the Police, in this case, that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required by the Police.

¶60

Considering the said fact, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as pretrial punishment is prohibited, under the law.

¶61

Even otherwise, the applicant is permanent resident of District Mandi. As such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for trial.

¶62

Consequently, interim order dated 17.2.2025, is made absolute, subject to conditions No. (ii) to (x), as contained in para-7 of the said order.

¶63

112025:HHC:9098

¶64

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall 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 case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶65

The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of law.

¶66

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

¶67

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶68

April 4, 2025 Kalpana

Munish Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs Naval Kishore

Akhil Rana Vs State of Hp

Bhagwat Prasad Vs Deepak Kumar

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jagmohan Jinta Vs Manju Jinta

Jad Ram Vs State of H.P.