Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 37 of 2025, dated 13.02.2025, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 69, 352, and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ). The victim was the petitioner’s tenant. She filed a civil suit,

¶12

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

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:8675

¶15

which was compromised in January 2025. The present complaint was filed on 13.02.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. Petitioner is a permanent resident of District Solan, H.P. There is no chance of his absconding. He would join the investigation and also abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police asserting that the petitioner had told her that he was divorcing his wife. He liked the victim and wanted to marry her. He also introduced the victim to his mother. The victim was ready to marry the petitioner. The petitioner maintained physical relationship with the victim from September 2002 to October 2024. She became pregnant in February 2024 and August 2024, but she was forced to abort the fetus. She opened a shop in the petitioner’s building and agreed to pay monthly rent @ ₹1500/to the petitioner. The petitioner’s wife gave beating to the victim on 15^th November, and thereafter the victim stopped talking to the petitioner. The petitioner disconnected the electricity connection on 30^th December 2024 due to which shop remain closed. The petitioner has the victim’s photographs, and

¶17

3

¶18

2025:HHC:8675

¶19

he is defaming her. He refused to marry her. The police registered the F.I.R., conducted the investigation, and filed a charge sheet. The matter was listed for consideration on charge on 28.02.2025. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

¶20

I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶21

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not show that any false statement was made by the petitioner regarding the marital status. The victim had filed a civil suit against the petitioner, which was compromised. The victim filed the F.I.R. to prevent her eviction. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime. He would intimidate the witnesses

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:8675

¶25

in case of his release on bail. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶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 page 783: -

¶28

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶29

26. While considering 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

¶30

5

¶31

2025:HHC:8675

¶32

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] . ]

¶33

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

¶38

6

¶39

2025:HHC:8675

¶40

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)

¶41

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

¶45

7

¶46

2025:HHC:8675

¶47

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)

¶48

This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479.

¶49

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

¶50

It was specifically mentioned in the complaint made to the police that the petitioner disclosed that he was married, hence, there was no misrepresentation regarding the marital status of the petitioner.

¶51

The victim stated in F.I.R. that the petitioner maintained sexual relations with her w.e.f. September, 2002 till October, 2024. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628 that maintaining sexual relations with the victim does not amount to rape. It was observed:

¶52

“12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim before the Police, both the First Information Statement and that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both parties was without

¶53

8

¶54

2025:HHC:8675

¶55

the consent of the victim. That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which, even as per the victim's statement, was repeated thrice in the same manner when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that after the frst incident and the second i incident, she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.”

¶56

In the present case also the victim was aware of the

¶57

marital status of the petitioner but still she engaged in a sexual relationship with him.

¶58

The victim filed a civil suit against the petitioner, stating that she was a tenant of the petitioner. She stated before the Court that she would vacate the premises and would not make any false allegations against the present petitioner. This statement was recorded on 17.01.2025, and the complaint was made to the police on 13.02.2025. All these circumstances make it difÏcult to place reliance upon the prosecution’s version regarding the rape of the victim.

¶59

The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Solan, which was not stated to be incorrect

¶60

9

¶61

2025:HHC:8675

¶62

by the police in the status report. It means that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding.

¶63

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

¶64

i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶65

ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶66

(iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court.

¶67

(iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

¶68

(v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.

¶69

(vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

¶70

10

¶71

2025:HHC:8675

¶72

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of

¶73

any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

¶74

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

¶75

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, District Solan, H.P and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶76

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the ofÏcial website of this Court.

¶77

2^nd April , 2025 (ravinder)

¶78

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶79

Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.04.02 15:00:08 IST

Gaurav Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav 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

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Kewal Ram Vs State of Hp

Jaswant Kaur Vs State of Hp

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Prahlad Kumar Alias Raj Kamal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp