Rajesh Thakur @ Sunny Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another

Virender Singh, J

Applicant – Rajesh Thakur @ Sunny Thakur, apprehending his arrest, in case arising out of FIR No.129 of 2025, dated 02.10.2025, registered, under Sections 69, 89, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’)

By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/ Investigating Officer of Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case.

The relief, as claimed, in the application has been sought on the ground that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the Police, at the instance of the complainant.

According to the applicant, police could not collect any evidence to connect him with the crime in question. According to the applicant there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./Police, under Section 482 BNSS.

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, on 06.10.2025, disclosing therein, that on 02.10.2025, the complainant/respondent No.2, moved a complaint to the police, mentioning therein, that she is having cordial relations with Sunny (Rajesh) Thakur (applicant) from the year 2018.

1. The applicant used to make false promise of marriage and sometimes, he assured her to solemnize marriage somewhere in the year 2025 or 2026 and due to this fact, the complainant remain tensed.

2. Not only this, sisters of the applicant also threatened the complainant to leave their brother and also alleged that she extracted money from him. The complainant tried to make them understand, however, they had threatened her parents to solemnize her marriage and also apprised them that the marriage of applicant has now been fixed.

3. The complainant remained under the impression that her relationship with applicant is now over, however, after the marriage of the complainant, she received message of congratulations regarding her marriage. The complainant did not reply the same, but accused forwarded the messages repeatedly. Those messages were ignored by her.

7.4. When the complainant joined her duties at Jubbal, she has made him understand not to make messages, but, he has insisted her to meet him one last time. In order to meet him for the last time, the complainant had gone to his room in the month of October 2024, where the complainant has allegedly ravished her.

7.5. When the complainant apprised the applicant that she is married then, he said that he will not permit her to go back to her husband and she will remain with him during the entire life. Thereafter, relationship continued. The applicant remained with her at her room for 3-4 days at Shimla. Thereafter, they stayed in a rented room at Theog. Later on, the relationship came to the knowledge of her family and on 30th November, his family had obtained her undertaking, in writing, that she will never contact him again.

7.6. It is the further case of the complainant that she had tried to normalize her relations with her husband, but her husband also came to know about the relationship. Due to this fact, a quarrel had taken place between husband and wife. Thereafter, she pacified her husband and started normal life. However, the applicant came back from rehabilitation centre and tried to contact her and compelled the complainant to obtain divorce from her husband, so that he could marry her.

7.7. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, their relationship resumed and the complainant left her matrimonial home and had started living with the applicant in a room at Samala. She has also filed a case against her husband for divorce.

7.8. In the m nth of May, the complainant came to know the fact that she is carrying fetus in her womb. On 12.06.2025, ultrasonography was conducted. On that day, the applicant took her to a Hotel at Mehandali, there the complainant impressed upon him to solemnize marriage, but, he refused to do so, however, assured her to solemnize marriage in the month of October/November.

7.9. Thereafter, applicant had allegedly beaten the complainant and forcibly made her to consume abortion pills. It is her further case that physical relations were lastly made on 18.09.2025, in a room at Hatkoti. Thereafter, on 25.09.2025, they visited Hatkoti temple.

7.10. On the basis of the above facts, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against the applicant.

On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case and criminal machinery swung into motion.

After registration of the FIR, the complainant was medico-legally examined at Civil H spital Rohru and the physical evidence collec ed by he doctor, was handed over to the police.

On 3.10.2025, the complainant was produced before the Court f learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Rohru, where her statement, under Section 183 of BNSS, was recorded. She has identified the alleged places of occurrence. Physical evidence, from the said spots, was taken into possession.

Lastly, it has been apprehended that the applicant is very clever person and on the pretext of marriage, he has made physical relations with the complainant. Due to the act of the applicant, the complainant is frightened and in case, relief is given to the applicant, he may coerce the complainant and the witnesses.

Considering the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 13.10.2025.

On 13.10.2025, the police has filed supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on the basis of the statement of the complainant, under Section 183 of the BNSS, Section 89 f BNS was added and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2025. On 28.10.2025, the police filed the status report by taking the similar stand.

In the status report filed on 27.11.2025, it has been apprehended that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and on the basis of the said fact, a prayer as been made to dismiss the application.

In this case, complainant/respondent No.2 has also filed objections, reiterating the stand, as taken in the complaint and according to complainant/respondent No.2, investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and to recover the electronic evidence.

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

As per the stand taken, in the status report, in the present case, possibility of consensual relationship cannot be ruled out completely and it seems that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant, when their alleged consensual relationship turned sour.

Applicant is permanent resident of District Shimla, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial.

At the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about the evidence should be avoided and the allegations, as well as the evidence, so collected, should not be discussed in a manner to decided whether the applicant is guilty of the offence or not, for which FIR has been registered against him. At the time of deciding the bail application, seriousness of the allegations, availability of the applicant for trial are to be seen.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No.516-522 of 2025), titled as State of Karnataka versus Sri Darshan Etc., Neutral Citation No.2025 INSC 979, has held that the guilt of the accused would be proved at the time of trial and at the time of deciding bail application, guilt of the person should not be decided. Relevant paragraphs 20.2.1, 20.2.2, 20.2.3 and 20.2.6, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:-

20.2.1. It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon he merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The cou t cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial.

20.2.2. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Khar tes, this Court held as under:

"Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself".

20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings.

xxx                                                                                                                       xxx                                                                                                                        xxx

20.2.6. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, the Court cautioned that there cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. The following paragraphs are pertinent:

"25. 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 of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivol us r vexatious in nature but are supp rted by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for g ant of bail a prima facie conclusion m st be supported by reasons and m st be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on rec rd. 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.

We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orders above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the "reasoning" of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. At the same time, a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused."

Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 06.10.2025, passed by his Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is o de ed that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case arising out of FIR No.129 f 2025, dated 02.10.2025, registered, under Sections 69, 89 and 351(2) of the BNS, with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of ₹50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :

a) That the applicant shall join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

b) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

c) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and

d) That the applicant shall 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 iling appropriate application.

Any of the observati ns, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an exp ession of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application.

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.