Ajit Singh Vs State of Hp

2026:HHC:10236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.426 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026

________________________________________________________________ Ajit Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Parmod Kumar, Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, present in person along with record.

¶5

________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Bail petitioner, namely Ajit Singh, who is behind the bars since 02.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.2/2026, dated 02.01.2026, under Sections 64 of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur.

¶7

In terms of order dated 20.03.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Parmod Kumar, Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶8

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

¶9

2026:HHC:10236

¶10

-2-

¶11

Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 01.01.2026, Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, received an e- mail with regard to marriage of victim-prosecutrix with present bail petitioner. Though credentials of complainant could not be established, but yet having taken note of details given in the complaint, Police recorded the statement of father of the victimprosecutrix (name withheld), who alleged that his eldest daughter, who had been studying in 10+2, had been talking to bail petitioner for quite long. He alleged that on 08.12.2025, his wife apprised him that her daughter, i.e. victim-prosecutrix, is pregnant and she, on inquiry, disclosed that for quite some time, she has physical relationship with the bail petitioner. He alleged that in the evening of 08.12.2025, his daughter, i.e. victimprosecutrix, of her own volition, left her house and started living at the house of bail petitioner. He alleged that one child has born out of the wedlock of victim-prosecutrix as well as bail petitioner. Since father of the victim-prosecutrix alleged that bail petitioner, taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of his daughter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars.

¶12

Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he

¶13

2026:HHC:10236

¶14

-3-

¶15

has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

¶16

Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated, because he and victim-prosecutrix, who at the time of alleged incident was minor, had been meeting and talking to each other for quite long and they had also solemnised marriage in the month of December, 2025. Mr. Chandel further argued that on 10.12.2025, one female child has born out of the wedlock of bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix and victim-prosecutrix in her statement given to Judicial Magistrate as well as Special Magistrate has already clarified that she of her own volition has solemnised marriage with bail petitioner and she wants to live with bail petitioner and as such, he may be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that though victim-prosecutrix has expressed her desire to live with the family of bail petitioner, who is also eager to take her along, but yet she along with her minor child has been sent to Bal Ashram. Lastly, Mr. Chandel submitted that since Challan already stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer made in the instant petition for grant of bail deserves to be allowed.

¶17

To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of completion of

¶18

2026:HHC:10236

¶19

-4-

¶20

investigation, stated that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by the him, he does not deserve any leniency. He stated that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage and minority of victim-prosecutrix sexually assaulted her against her wishes and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Police, while registering FIR against him. He submitted that since at the time of alleged sexual assault, victim-prosecutrix was minor, consent, if any, of her is of no consequence. He further submitted that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to victim-prosecutrix, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the trial Court.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on 01.01.2026, one complaint was received from person namely Shishu Pal, whose whereabouts and credentials have not been established till date, to the effect that marriage of victimprosecutrix and bail petitioner was solemnised in violation to the provisions contained in the Child Marriage Act. As per statement given by father of the victim-prosecutrix, factum of alleged sexual assault upon her minor daughter had come to his notice on 08.12.2025, on which date, allegedly victim-prosecutrix herself

¶22

2026:HHC:10236

¶23

-5-

¶24

disclosed that she is pregnant, but yet her father chose to remain silent and at no point of time, he lodged any complaint, rather, he himself permitted her minor daughter to leave her house and join the company of bail petitioner. It also clearly emerges from the status report that prior to lodging of the FIR, victimprosecutrix and bail petitioner had solemnised marriage and out of their wedlock, one female child was born.

¶25

Victim-prosecutrix, who is present in Court, stated before this Court that though her actual date of birth is 08.12.2006, but her parents have got the same registered as 08.12.2008 in official records. She further stated that she of her own volition had been joining the company of the bail petitioner, who otherwise never sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She submitted that as per official records, her age is approximately 17 and a half years and she is capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of bail petitioner. She submitted that since she has a minor child and she has already solemnised marriage with the bail petitioner, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner may be accepted, so that she along with her husband raises their minor child together.

¶26

True it is that consent, if any, of minor is immaterial, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as have been taken note hereinabove, where victim-

¶27

2026:HHC:10236

¶28

-6-

¶29

prosecutrix has not only solemnised marriage with bail petitioner, but out of their wedlock, one female child has born, coupled with the fact that victim-prosecutrix has already stated before the Special Judge/Court below that she does not wish to prosecute the case against her husband, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. Otherwise also, on account of statement given by victim-prosecutrix in the instant proceedings, chances of conviction of bail petitioner are very remote and bleak, rather it is in the interest of both the parties to settle down the matter and take care of each other. Moreover, on account of lodging of bail petitioner in jail, victim-prosecutrix along with her child is compelled to live in Bal Ashram. Though case at hand shall be decided by the Court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having regard to aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.

¶30

Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court held that appellant and the victim are not only legally married, but they are also in their family way and

¶31

2026:HHC:10236

¶32

-7-

¶33

while considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, Hon’ble Apex Court has discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment held that the victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Relevant Para of afore judgment read as under:

¶34

“9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.

¶35

We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.”

¶36

2026:HHC:10236

¶37

-8-

¶38

Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

¶40

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced

¶41

2026:HHC:10236

¶42

-9-

¶43

by the Court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶44

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶45

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case

¶47

2026:HHC:10236

¶48

-10-

¶49

for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶50

(a) he shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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;

¶51

(b) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶52

(c) he shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶53

(d) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶54

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty

¶55

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

¶56

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

¶57