Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 7 of 2024 registered at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The petitioner contended that the allegations were improbable, contained serious contradictions, and that there was no ocular or scientific evidence against him, with the FSL report revealing no blood or semen in the material objects collected.
The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that the victim had made a statement on oath before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the trial court, asserting that the petitioner had taken her to Haridwar, Delhi, and Lakhimpur Khiri Gurella and had raped her. The petitioner had been in custody since 13.6.2024, the trial had not commenced, and the prosecution had cited 30 witnesses none of whom had been examined.
The court considered the parameters for granting bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. and related decisions, examining factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with witnesses, and the right to a speedy trial, before proceeding to decide the petition.
Catchwords:
bail · regular bail · POCSO · rape · kidnapping · contradictions in victim's statement · speedy trial · Section 164 statement · FSL report · parameters for bail
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 23.4.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
2025:HHC:11452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2982 of 2024
Reserved on: 23.4.2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025.
Rohit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
