The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexual assault, observing that a long-standing relationship does not give anyone the right to engage in sexual acts without consent. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, while examining the allegations and medical evidence in Tarun Bharota v. State of HP & Anr., also raised concerns over omissions in the State’s new medico-legal report format, particularly the absence of fields recording the nature and probable duration of injuries.
Background
According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place on August 23, 2026, in Manali. The complainant stated that she and the petitioner had been in a relationship for approximately ten years and were engaged.
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner physically assaulted and sexually abused her, burned her private parts with a lighter, and choked her. Following the allegations, an FIR was registered on August 25, 2026, at Manali Police Station, District Kullu, under Sections 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed false implication. His counsel questioned the delay in filing the complaint, challenged the medical evidence concerning the alleged burn injuries and relied on the landlord's statement in support of the defence.
Opposing the plea, the complainant's counsel argued that the medical-legal report corroborated the allegations. Counsel also alleged that the petitioner had contacted, pressured and intimidated the complainant and other witnesses after receiving interim protection, referring to a complaint submitted to the investigating officer on September 29, 2026.
The Court noted that the medical-legal report recorded injuries on the complainant's thighs, breast and forearms, including burn marks. It held that the delay in reporting the incident was not fatal to the prosecution at this stage.
The Court reiterated the principles governing anticipatory bail, observing:
"No doubt, the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights but the interests of justice and fair play have also to be kept in mind by the Courts while safeguarding individual rights. Protecting public interest has also to be kept in mind while disposing of such bail applications."
It further observed that being in a relationship did not give the petitioner a licence to engage in sexual acts without consent.
The Court held that the material on record did not justify anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. Separately, it flagged missing fields in Himachal Pradesh's new medical-legal report format concerning the nature and probable duration of injuries.
Case Title: Tarun Bharota v. State of HP & Anr.
Case Number: Cr.MP(M) No. 1774 of 2026
