Single-judge High Court allowed bail to petitioner charged with rape. Court relied on prima facie weak prosecution evidence and medical/FSL findings. Violation of speedy trial noted but potential witness intimidation held curable by conditions.
Petitioner released on bail by furnishing personal bond with surety for 80 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 1073 of 2026 Reserved on: 10.09.2026 Date of Decision: 15.09.2026
Deepak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : | Mr Ravi Tegta, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondent/State | : | Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. |
| For the victim | : | Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel. |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 74 of 2025, registered at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(2) (f), 332(b) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
3
at about 01.30 a.m. The petitioner entered her house and raped her. The victim ran away at about 02.00 a.m. She reported the matter to the police, and the police registered the FIR. The police seized various material objects, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). As per the report of the FSL, the DNA obtained from the bed sheet/blanket was not consistent with the DNA obtained from the blood of the petitioner. As per the medical opinion, there was no evidence of any sexual act. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail; the police have filed the charge sheet before the court. Statements of two witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed on 08.07.2026 for recording the statements of the witnesses. Hence, the status report.
4
implicated because of the land dispute between the petitioner and the victim. The medical evidence did not find any evidence of a sexual act, and the Report of the FSL did not find the petitioner’s DNA in the blanket and bedsheet. The petitioner has remained in custody for about one year. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5
case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 , wherein it was observed at page 380:
( i ) Broad principles for the grant of bail
“ 7 . It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
8 . Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being . [ Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England ” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9 . Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
6
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance .” (emphasis supplied)
“ 8 . The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge .” (emphasis supplied)
7
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
“ 3 . Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter .” (emphasis supplied)
“ 9 . … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting
8
bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are :
( i ) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence ;
( ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation ;
( iii ) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction ; ( iv ) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail ;
( v ) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused ;
( vi ) likelihood of the offence being repeated ;
( vii ) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
( viii ) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail .” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
“ 35 . While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time, while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight
9
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused .” (emphasis supplied)
Balchand , (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the
gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10
11
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: -
12
to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
District Jail Kaithu, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) 15th September, 2026. Judge. (Ravinder)
RAVINDER KUMAR Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMARDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMARReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026-09-15 14:30:27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of rape given the prima facie weak case and lack of corroborative evidence.
Whether the apprehension of witness intimidation justifies the refusal of bail in the absence of specific material evidence of tampering.
Whether the trial court has violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial by listing the matter on only one date.
Deepak
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
