Court emphasizes that gravity of offense alone cannot deny bail and imposes stringent conditions on the accused to ensure trial attendance and victim's safety
In a significant judgment delivered on September 3, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to Vinod Kumar, the accused in a sexual assault case registered under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case originated from a complaint lodged by a 31-year-old woman at the Women Police Station, Bilaspur, alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her under the pretext of marriage.
The Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, examined the facts and material on record, including the victim's statement and the police report. It was noted that the victim had voluntarily entered into a relationship with the accused since 2022 and delayed lodging the FIR until June 22, 2026. The victim's statement indicated that she sought the accused's advice about her horoscope and divorce and had consensual relations with him, which raised doubts regarding the charge of sexual assault against her wishes.
Addressing the prosecution's contention about the seriousness of the allegations and the accused's criminal history - including 23 registered cases, mostly under the Excise Act, with 21 acquittals - the Court held that the gravity of the offense cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. It emphasized the fundamental principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that indefinite incarceration before trial violates the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court drew upon authoritative Supreme Court decisions, including Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reiterating that bail's purpose is not punitive but to ensure the accused's presence at trial. It further observed that apprehensions about the accused fleeing or threatening the victim could be addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions.
Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, subject to the accused furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties of equal amount and complying with conditions such as regular attendance at trial, no tampering with evidence, no inducement or threats to witnesses, and not leaving India without prior court permission. The Court also clarified that any misuse of the bail conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
This ruling underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring justice for victims, reaffirming that bail decisions require careful consideration of all factors, not just the gravity of allegations.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted to the accused under Sections 64, 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Court observed that the accused's guilt is yet to be proven, and incarceration for an indefinite period would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 64, 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976812
