Rahul Vs State of Hp

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Ms Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Yog Raj I.O. P.S. Beer District Kangra, H.P. is present with the police record.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2) of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ ) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( ‘POCSO

¶12

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

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:5517

¶15

Act’ ) registered vide FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated 24.05.2024, at Police Station Beer, District Kangra, H.P., H.P. The petitioner is a student and studies in Chandigarh. The petitioner solemnised the marriage with the victim on 13.02.2025. The police have completed the investigation, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has to attend his classes and also to appear in the examination. He has roots in the society, and there is no likelihood of his jumping the bail. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim, aged 17 years, disclosed to her mother that she had pain in her stomach. She was taken to hospital, where the Medical Officer informed her that she was pregnant and she had aborted the foetus. The victim revealed after enquiry that the petitioner had raped her, leading to her pregnancy. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner. As per the reports of the Medical Officers, the petitioner was capable of performing sexual intercourse, and the victim was pregnant. The police filed a

¶17

3

¶18

2025:HHC:5517

¶19

charge sheet before the Court. The matter is now listed before the Court for prosecution evidence from 25^th to 28^th March 2025.

¶20

I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Niyati Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶21

Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has married the victim. The charge sheet has been filed, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Ms Niyati Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General

¶23

for the respondent/State, submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has married the victim. The prosecution evidence is yet to commence, and the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶25

4

¶26

2025:HHC:5517

¶27

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at page

¶28

783: -

¶29

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶30

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P . , ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . ]

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:5517

¶33

8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of

¶34

M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as

¶35

under:-

¶36

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

¶37

“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶38

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the

¶39

6

¶40

2025:HHC:5517

¶41

Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:—

¶42

“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶43

14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed:

¶44

“ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶45

7

¶46

2025:HHC:5517

¶47

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶48

The victim stated that she became pregnant because

¶49

she was raped by the petitioner 2-3 times. This is duly corroborated by the report of the Medical Officer stating that the victim had delivered beforehand and was presented with the placental product remaining.

¶50

Perusal of the status report further shows that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, as per the Pariwar register.

¶51

The petitioner asserted that he had married the victim. He filed a copy of the Marriage certificate, issued by M aa Bhadrakali Jyotish Sansthan, Booth No. 89, Sector-4, M.D.C. Panchkula (Haryana). The authenticity of such a certificate has not been verified, and no reliance can be placed upon it. In any case, the marriage between the petitioner and the victim will not efface the crime committed before the marriage.

¶52

12. The matter is now listed for prosecution evidence from 25^th to 28^th March 2025. The petitioner can influence the

¶53

8

¶54

2025:HHC:5517

¶55

witnesses if released on bail. Hence, the petitioner cannot be

¶56

released at this stage.

¶57

Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.

¶58

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶59

The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending application(s), if any.

¶60

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶61

10^th March, 2025.

¶62

( ravinder )

Rahul v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Hp

Vikas Sidhu Vs State of Hp and Anr.

State of Hp Vs Devi Chand

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ravi Kumar Vs Shakti Cholia

Nirat Singh Vs Sita Devi