Sameer Sharma Vs State of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 7 of 2025, dated 08.02.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 64 (2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) at Women Police Station Chamba, H.P.

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:20298

¶15

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the Child Helpline, Chamba received an information on 08.02.2025 that the victim was pregnant for about five months. Child Helpline Chamba conducted an inquiry, and the victim disclosed that she had married the petitioner, Sameer Sharma, on 18.06.2024. She was residing with the petitioner in a rented accommodation. The victim was found in the house of the accused with her sister-inlaw. An F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is aged 19 years. He has no criminal background. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

¶16

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that an information was received by Child Helpline Chamba on 08.02.2025 that the victim, aged 16 years, was pregnant for about 5 months. The victim revealed on inquiry that she had married the petitioner on 18.01.2024. The police registered the F.I.R. and found the victim in the room of the petitioner with her sister-in-law. Her statement was recorded. Parties are residents of Bihar. The date of birth certificate of the accused disclosed that he was born on 10.06.2006. As per the school leaving certificate, the victim was born on 05.04.2010. As per the

¶17

3

¶18

2025:HHC:20298

¶19

primary certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 27.08.2023. The result from SFSL Dharmshala is awaited. Hence, the status report.

¶20

I have heard Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶21

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the victim, she had married the petitioner and was residing in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner has been behind the bars for the last two months, and there is no one to look after the victim. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He impregnated a minor girl, and no sympathy should be shown to him. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:20298

¶25

I have given considerable thought to the submissions

¶26

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶27

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at page

¶28

783: -

¶29

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶30

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P . , ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:20298

¶33

Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . ]

¶34

9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of

¶35

M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: -

¶36

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

¶37

“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶38

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court

¶39

6

¶40

2025:HHC:20298

¶41

to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: —

¶42

“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶43

14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed:

¶44

“ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶45

7

¶46

2025:HHC:20298

¶47

This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.

¶48

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶49

Perusal of the status report shows that the victim and the accused are married to each other. The victim stated that she married the petitioner on 18.06.2024. As per the school leaving certificate issued by the school, she was born on 05.04.2010. Thus, she was less than 18 years old on the date of her marriage. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered under the POSCO Act where the parties had married each other in Shri Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2019 (3) ShimLC 1746, and Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625. Hon’ble Supreme Court also quashed the proceedings where the parties were married to each other in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614.

¶50

In the present case, nobody made any complaint to any person and the complaint was made by Child Helpline when the pregnancy of the victim was detected. The victim is alone, and there is no one to look after her. Therefore, detaining the

¶51

8

¶52

2025:HHC:20298

¶53

petitioner in judicial custody will harm the interests of the victim and her unborn child.

¶54

The status report shows that the petitioner is working at Chamba. The police also verified his address. Therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. Thus, in these circumstances, the further detention of the petitioner is not justified.

¶55

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

¶56

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

¶57

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

¶58

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;

¶59

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

¶60

(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and

¶61

9

¶62

2025:HHC:20298

¶63

will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

¶64

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of

¶65

any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

¶66

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Chamba District Chamba, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶67

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.

¶68

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶69

28^th June, 2025 (ravinder)

¶70

Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL KARAN PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225 878f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SINGH SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375 291962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f 01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document GULERIA Location: Date: 2025-06-28 13:22:50

Sameer Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Mehra Vs State of Hp

Raj Chander Negi Vs State of Hp

Ravi Kant Vs State of Hp

Neeraj Verma Vs State of Hp

Anku Vs State of Hp