Disposed

Dilshad @ Rashid v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Mar 2026CRMPM/3040/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under BNSS Section 483 for an accused facing IPC Section 376 and POCSO Sections 6 and 17 charges. With charges framed but trial far from conclusion, court invoked speedy-trial rights under Article 21 and cited Supreme Court decisions to grant bail with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one local surety, subject to stated conditions.

Dilshad @ Rashid Vs State of Hp — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

Cr.MP(M) No.3040 of 2025

¶5

Date of Decision : 06.03.2026

Dilshad @ Rashid

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶10

……Respondent

¶11

Coram:

¶12

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶13

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Govind Korla, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

: H.C. Inderjeet, No. 37 P.S. Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. present in person.

¶16

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

¶17

The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.50/2024 dated 28.03.2024, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 6 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶18

On the last date of hearing, notice through the concerned police official had been sent to the father of the victim qua pendency of the present bail petition. In pursuance thereof, the father of the victim was contacted and

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶22

informed of the pending bail petition in the case at hand. Proof of service of notice by the concerned police official on the father of the victim has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the State. Despite having been given notice, none has appeared.

¶23

The bail petitioner in the case at hand is accused of having committed offences under Section 376 of the IPC read with Sections 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On 28.3.2024, when the brother of the victim came home, he found that the victim was not at home. Adjacent to the house of the victim is a school, outside the school, the brother of the victim had seen a motorcycle bearing No. HR02A8942 parked. On entering the school, the complainant found his sister and the bail petitioner. The sister (victim) is alleged to be about 17 years of age. One Sameer, as per the brother of the victim, was standing outside the school in order to warn the bail petitioner of any impending approaching danger. The said Sameer has been enlarged on bail vide judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.12449 of 2024.

¶24

The bail petitioner, with Sameer, had absconded. The bail petitioner was arrested on 31.3.2024 and was sent to police remand on 3.4.2025, thereafter, ever since he has been in judicial custody. Initially, the victim had refused medical examination. Later, she alleged that the bail petitioner had misbehaved with her on three occasions. Medical and forensic examination was got conducted. Post conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted on 24.5.2024. A supplementary challan was filed on 10.3.2025.

¶25

Subsequent to the framing of charges in the case at hand,

¶26

prosecution evidence has commenced. In all, there are thirty witnesses, five

¶27

¶28

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶29

witnesses have been examined, including the victim, the brother of the victim (complainant), and certain other material independent witnesses. The matter is now posted for 25^th, 26^th & 27^th of March, 2026 for recording of evidence of the officials and sixteen witnesses. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

¶30

Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just” procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the Accused.

¶31

In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 184 : 2018 SCC onLine SC 478; Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453 .

¶32

The intent of the speedy trial can also be gathered from the statutory provisions of the POCSO Act, specifically Section 35 (2) thereof. The same reads as under:-

¶33

“35. Period for recording of evidence of child and disposal of

¶34

case.—

¶35

(1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court.

¶36

(2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.”

¶37

¶38

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶39

As per aforesaid provision of the Act, Special Court is under obligation to complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.

¶40

The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Punishment begins after trial.

¶41

While deciding an application for bail, Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable.

¶42

From the status report, so filed, it is evident that the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. Personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. Liberty is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

¶43

The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village Palori, P.O. Darpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur, H.P. In order to ensure his presence at trial stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail.

¶44

Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner, whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the confidence that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court.

¶45

¶46

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶47

The respondent/State has not expressed any apprehension regarding him fleeing from the justice and adversely affecting the trial. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial.

¶48

Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.50/2024 dated 28.03.2024, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Sections 6 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lac] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this bail order is subject to the following conditions:-.

¶49

(i) Petitioner shall 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 filing appropriate application;

¶50

(ii) P etitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever;

¶51

(iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

¶52

(iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

¶53

(v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated

¶54

¶55

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶56

within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; &

¶57

(vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard.

¶58

Needless to say that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty

¶59

to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioner.

¶60

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

¶61

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶62

In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Nahan. The Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour H.P, is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶63

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour H.P. and the learned trial Court by FASTER.

¶64

¶65

( 2026:HHC:6105

¶66

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶67

6^th March, 2026 (tarun)

¶68

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶69

Digitally signed by TARUN SINGH DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= d9a5ff72fb0acba2bc2e5e2a887cd8990f182 4b024012b79267e68676b38171a, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= 2c3ab1f19a0e20eacba86d89a55d133fa673 627a3d655d03d667760fbae50f3a, CN= TARUN SINGH Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.03.06 17:19:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0

¶70

TARUN SINGH

Dilshad @ Rashid v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad @ Rashid v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajnish Singh @ Jeet Vs State of Hp and Another

Virender Vs State of Hp

Yoginder Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Vs Suvarna and Ors.

Pooja Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

The Secretary, Rural Development and Anr. Vs Milkhi Ram and Anr.