Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

2026:HHC:5299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 15 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.03.2026

--------------------------------------- Rajinder Kumar State of Himachal Pradesh ---------------------------------------	---------------------------------------------- ...Petitioner Versus …Respondent -------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sand	eep Sharma, Judge.
*Whether approved for repo* ---------------------------------------	*rting?*¹ ------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s):	Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banstu, Deputy Advocates Generals
---------------------------------------	ASI Inder Jeet PS Rampur, present in person --------------------------------------------------

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Sequel to order dated 02.01.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in FIR No.117 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 under Sections 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered at Police Station Rampur, Distt. Shimla, H.P, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Inder Jeet PS Rampur has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2026:HHC:5299

¶9

Close scrutiny of status report as well as record made available to this Court reveal that ABC (name withheld to protect the identity) lodged a complainant at Police Station, detailed herein above, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner in the year 2007 and out of their wedlock, one daughter was born, namely XYJ (name withheld to protect her identity), who is 17 years old and at present is studying at Chandigarh. Complainant alleged that since 2015, she had been working as an Accountant and was residing in a rented accommodation along with her daughter, who at the relevant time was studying in Class 4. She alleged that w.e.f. May 2019 till September 2020, her minor daughter was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her husband i.e. father of victim/prosecutrix, who is a drug addict. She alleged that in the year 2023, she took divorce from her husband i.e. petitioner and since 2024, her daughter i.e. victim/prosecutrix, has been studying at Chandigarh. She alleged that her daughter victim/prosecutrix fell ill in the month of May 2025, whereafter, she was taken to PGI Chandigarh. Allegedly, victim/prosecutrix during her investigation, disclosed to the doctor concerned that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her father w.e.f. May 2019 till September 2020. In the afore background FIR, detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner.

¶10

2026:HHC:5299

¶11

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel representing petitioner vehemently argued that FIR is outcome of matrimonial discord inter se complainant and petitioner. He states that alleged incident had happened between 2017 till 2019 and thereafter since the year 2023, victim/prosecutrix was residing with complainant and during afore period, no complaint was ever lodged against the petitioner. He states that present FIR has been lodged by the complainant to pressurize the bail petitioner, who after being divorced by his wife, had refused to give some money as was being demanded by the complainant. While referring to the medical evidence adduced on record, Mr. Kochhar, states that same belies the story of prosecution. He states that neither MLC nor SFSL report suggests that victim/prosecutrix was ever sexually assaulted by his father. While referring to the MLC dated 13.12.2025, issued by Medical Officer, MG, MHC Khaneri, Rampur, Distt. Shimla, Mr. Kochhar states that victim/prosecutrix has been opined to be recently subjected to forceful sexual intercourse, whereas, allegations levelled against the accused pertain to year 2017 to the year 2019, Mr.Kochhar states that bail petitioner is a respectable member of society and in the event of his being not enlarged on bail, he will not only suffer humiliation, but his reputation in society would also be damaged. He submits that since challan stands presented before the Competent Court

¶12

2026:HHC:5299

¶13

of law, interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2026 deserves to be made absolute. 4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan before the Competent Court of Law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. He further states that statement of victim/prosecutrix recorded by Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of BNS, clearly suggests that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the petitioner. He states that though there has been matrimonial discord inter se mother of the victim and bail petitioner but that cannot be ground to conclude that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant. While referring to the medical evidence adduced on record, he specifically denied submission made by Mr. Kochhar that medical evidence adduced on record does not support the case of the prosecution. He states that case against the petitioner shall be decided on the basis of totality of evidence and it may be premature at this stage to conclude his innocence. He states that since statements of victim/prosecutrix as well as complainant are yet to be recorded, it will not in the interest of justice to enlarge the

¶14

2026:HHC:5299

¶15

petitioner on bail, who besides fleeing from justice can also tamper with the prosecution.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim/prosecutrix is daughter of complainant as well as bail petitioner. It is also not in dispute that on account of matrimonial discord inter se complainant and bail petitioner, they have already taken divorce from the Competent Court of Law. As per own case of the complainant, since May 2023, victim/prosecutrix had been residing at Chandigarh along with her grand-mother and maternal aunt.

¶17

Besides above, allegations of sexual assault, if any, levelled by petitioner pertain to year 2017 to year 2019, whereafter, victim had been residing with her mother. There is no evidence that prior to lodging of FIR, which came to be lodged in the year 2025, complaint/report of sexual assault, if any, was ever made by the victim/prosecutrix to her mother, grand-mother or other relatives. Divorce in the case at hand was granted in the year 2023 and at that relevant time, age of the victim/prosecutrix was 15 years. Though, prosecution with a view to explain delay in lodging FIR has attempted to carve out a case that factum with regard to sexual assault committed upon victim/prosecutrix by the bail petitioner came to fore, when she was taken to PGI

¶18

2026:HHC:5299

¶19

Chandigarh for treatment but such explanation does not appear to be plausible. Allegedly, in the May 2025, victim/prosecutrix developed symptom of depression and thereafter, while consulting with doctor on the subject concerned, disclosed factum of her having been subjected to sexual assaulted by her father but no record with regard to mental illness, if any, with the victim/prosecutrix prior to May 2025 has been adduced on record. 7. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, victim/prosecutrix came present along with her mother. This Court on the request of victim/prosecutrix interacted with her in camera proceedings, wherein, she stated that her parents were not having cordial relations and they had been fighting with each other constantly, as a result thereof, she was under constant pressure/tension. Though, victim/prosecutrix corroborated the version putforth by her mother in the complaint that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her father but there is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua delay in lodging complaint/FIR. Victim/prosecutrix was unable to point out the reason for her having not disclosed such fact to her mother as well as her grand-mother, with whom, she had been residing since September 2020. Admittedly, after September 2020, victim/prosecutrix never met with her father i.e. bail petitioner and

¶20

2026:HHC:5299

¶21

as such this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that victim/prosecutrix was under constant fear of her father.

¶22

Leaving everything aside, medical evidence adduced on record, especially, report of SFSL, does not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, report dated 24.12.2025 issued by Medical Officer, MG MHC Khaneri suggests something else. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to submit that MLC dated 24.12.2025 may not be of much relevance for the reason that allegation pertain to year 2017 to 2019, but since he was unable to explain that once incident was of year 2017-2019 where was occasion to subject the victim/prosecutrix to medically examined in the year 2025.

¶23

Though, statement of victim/prosecutrix, especially in cases registered under POCSO, cannot be brushed aside easily, but certainly, having regard to the nature of dispute inter se complainant and bail petitioner, coupled with the delay in lodging the FIR, which is more than 6 years, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Kochhar that FIR in which the petitioner has been made accused, could be a result of animosity inter se complainant and bail petitioner.

¶24

Though, case at hand is to be decided by the learned Court below in totality of evidence, but taking note of aforesaid

¶25

2026:HHC:5299

¶26

glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to keep the petitioner in judicial custody during trial, who otherwise, pursuant to order passed by this Court has already joined investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him.

¶27

Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of cases have held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities again, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

¶28

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

¶29

2026:HHC:5299

¶30

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶31

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶32

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for

¶33

2026:HHC:5299

¶34

bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

¶35

Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 02.01.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute subject to petitioner’s furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

¶36

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required 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 appropriate application;

¶37

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶38

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶39

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶40

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuse the liberty or

¶41

violate any of the conditions imposed upon him the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶42

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stand accordingly disposed of.

¶43

2026:HHC:5299

¶44

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by

¶45

the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bond from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity

¶46

of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶47

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶48

March 02, 2026. (meera)

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder 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

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Hp

Charan Dass Vs State of Hp

Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Neeraj Vs Devinder Singh Jalta and Anr.

Waseem Beg Vs State of Hp