Himachal Pradesh High Court Confirms Pre-Arrest Bail, Cites Complainant’s Refusal for Medical Examination in Rape Case
Kiran Raj
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an applicant accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), observing that custodial interrogation is no longer required and that the allegations will be examined during the trial. The Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh confirmed the interim protection granted to the applicant earlier and directed that the applicant may seek regular bail once the charge sheet is filed before the competent court. The Court recorded that the applicant, presumed innocent until proven guilty, cannot be subjected to pre-trial punishment.
The applicant had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing apprehension of arrest in connection with FIR No. 3 of 2025, registered at Police Station Janjehali, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi. The case was registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, 352, and 324 of the BNS. The applicant contended that the case was falsely registered and that he was being blackmailed by the complainant. The plea further stated that the applicant was a respectable individual with deep roots in society and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
During the initial hearing on January 16, 2025, the High Court issued notice to the State and granted interim protection to the applicant. The matter was subsequently adjourned for filing of the status report. The police submitted the status report, stating that the complainant, a married woman, had lodged a complaint alleging that she was raped by the applicant. According to her statement, the incident first occurred in January 2023 when the applicant visited her house at night in the absence of her husband and offered her a soft drink allegedly laced with an intoxicant. She claimed that under the influence of the substance, she was raped and that the applicant recorded an obscene video of her. The complaint further alleged that the applicant later used the video to threaten and coerce her, continuing to sexually exploit her over time.
The complainant also stated that the applicant had promised to marry her and provide maintenance but later refused to do so. Additionally, she alleged that on January 10, 2025, the applicant visited her residence again, resulting in a physical altercation, during which he allegedly damaged her phone. Based on her complaint, the police registered the case and initiated an investigation.
The police report submitted to the Court stated that the complainant had refused to undergo a medico-legal examination, citing the time elapsed since the alleged incidents. The police subsequently added Section 351(2) of the BNS to the charges and produced the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Thunag for recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. A site inspection was conducted, and a map of the location was prepared. The applicant, in compliance with the High Court's interim order, joined the investigation and was medically examined.
The investigation also led to the recovery of a mobile phone presented by the applicant, which was taken into police custody. The complainant later produced a pen drive containing purported audio recordings and messages, which was also seized for forensic analysis. The police confirmed that the investigation was complete and that the charge sheet had been prepared, with only the forensic report from SFSL Junga pending.
The Additional Advocate General opposed the bail plea, arguing that the allegations against the applicant were serious and that the charge sheet had been finalized. It was contended that granting bail at this stage could hinder the legal process. However, the Court, after examining the records, observed that the applicant had complied with the conditions of interim protection and had fully cooperated with the investigation.
The High Court recorded that the complainant’s allegations, including claims regarding promises of marriage and maintenance, were matters to be examined during the trial. It noted that "the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime will be proved during the course of trial. The accused is to be presumed innocent till the conclusion of the trial and the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law."
The Court also took into account that no other criminal case had been registered against the applicant, thereby reinforcing the presumption of innocence. It noted that the complainant had refused to undergo medico-legal examination, a fact that was also acknowledged in the police report. The Court held that "the interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 16th January, 2025, is liable to be made confirmed."
Based on these considerations, the High Court made the interim bail order absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned in the previous order. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the disposal of the bail application and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to apply for regular bail once the charge sheet was filed in the competent court. The State was granted the liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions were violated.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant:
- Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent-State:
- S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General
- Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General
- Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General
- Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: XXX v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:3553
Case Number: CrMP (M) No. 126 of 2025
Bench: Justice Virender Singh
[Read/Download order]
