Ram Babu Vs State of Hp

1

2025:HHC:31484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1985 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Decided on: 15 .09.2025

¶4

Ram Babu ...…. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting? No.¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S.Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent/State: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 98 of 2025, dated 22.03.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 65 of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita(BNS),2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:31484

¶15

It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner married the victim, who did not make any complaint, and the complaint was made by a third person. The police have completed the investigation. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶16

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police regarding the marriage of the eleven-year-old victim. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The victim revealed during interrogation that she was married to Ram Babu (the petitioner)on 15.06.2024. As per the school record, the victim was born on 01.01.2008 and was aged 16 years five months on the date of her marriage. The offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was not found to have been committed. The challan has been filed before the Court on 08.05.2025, and the matter was listed for consideration of the charge on 10.09.2025. Hence, the status report.

¶17

3

¶18

2025:HHC:31484

¶19

I have heard Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

¶20

Mr. H.S.Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not heinous. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that a minor girl was married, which is a violation of Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The offence is heinous. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶22

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:31484

¶25

The parameters for granting bail were

¶26

consideredby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observedat page 783: -

¶27

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶28

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

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts

¶30

against the superficial examination of the bail

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:31484

¶33

consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4

¶34

SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177:

¶35

“18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.”

¶36

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

¶37

A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner had married the victim, who was aged 16 years and 5 months on the date of the incident. The police did not find the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶38

Since no penetrative sexual assault was committed, no aggravated penetrative sexual assault could have been committed because the latter is an aggravated form of the former; hence, offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is also not made out.

¶39

6

¶40

2025:HHC:31484

¶41

Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, provides for the rigorous imprisonment of two years for solemnising a child marriage. The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2025, and the charges have not been framed. The trial of the petitioner is not likely to be concluded within two years due to the huge pendency of criminal cases before the Courts in Himachal. The police have not mentioned any reason for the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the punishment provided for it, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

7

¶45

2025:HHC:31484

¶46

(ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶47

(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 concerned Police Station and the Court.

¶48

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

¶49

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court throughSMS/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.

¶50

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the

¶51

liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶55

15^th September 2025. (ravinder)

¶56

Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c870 77dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c 4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-09-15 13:32:21

¶57

RAVINDER KUMAR

Ram Babu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu 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

Virender Singh @ Binni Vs State of Hp and Another

Rakesh Kumar @ Rocky Vs State of Hp

Om Kumari Vs Om Parkash

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs State of Hp

Abhinash Saini Vs State of Hp