Rajesh Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.860 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.06.2026

________________________________________________________________ Rajesh .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ..…Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram:_

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Manget & Mr. Rajender Gulati, Advocates. 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. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Bail petitioner, namely Rajesh, who is behind the bars since 18.03.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.40 of 2026, dated 22.02.2026, under Section 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Puruwala, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

2. In terms of order dated 18.05.2026, respondent/ State has filed status report and SI Ramesh Chand, PS

¶9

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

¶10

-2-

¶11

Puruwala, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶12

3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged on the basis of the statement made by the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the identity) under Section 173 BNS, but information with regard to alleged commission of offence was given to the police by the Medical Officer of Dr. YSPGMC, Nahan. The Medical Officer of afore medical college apprised the police authorities with regard to the fact that victim/prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was a minor, had been brought to the hospital for delivery. Thereafter, police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim/prosecutrix. Victim/prosecutrix disclosed to the police that she had come in the contact of the petitioner about 2 ½ years ago in some marriage function and thereafter, they had been meeting and talking to each other. She further stated that since she had not disclosed to the petitioner that she was below 18 years of age, petitioner proposed her for marriage and thereafter, since February, 2024, she had been residing with the petitioner at his house as his wife. As per the status report, victim/prosecutrix at the time of registration of the FIR was

¶13

-3-

¶14

minor, but since she became pregnant on account of her having maintained physical relation with the petitioner, FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner under relevant provisions of law and since 18.03.2026, bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

¶15

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Manget, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, because he has not committed any wrong upon the victim/prosecutrix, with whom he had already solemnized marriage in the month of February, 2024. He states that bare perusal of the statement of the victim/ prosecutrix recorded under Section 173 BNS reveals that petitioner was not aware that victim/prosecutrix was minor, rather, he remained under impression that she was major, solemnized marriage two years back and since then they have been living as husband and wife. He states that though victim/prosecutrix is minor, but there is ample material adduced on record by the Investigating Agency itself suggests that since February,

¶16

-4-

¶17

2024, victim/ prosecutrix has been residing with her in-laws and one child has been born out of their wedlock.

¶18

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that though there is material available on record suggestive of the fact that victim/prosecutrix of her own volition joined the company of the petitioner and she has also solemnized marriage, but once it is not in dispute that she is minor, consent, if any, of her is of no consequence and no illegality can be said to have been committed by police, while registering case under the relevant provisions of law against the petitioner. He states that in case petitioner is released on bail, he may again indulge in the same crime, for which he has already behind the bars.

¶19

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though FIR never came to be instituted on the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim/prosecutrix or

¶20

-5-

¶21

her parents, rather matter came to the knowledge of the police on the basis of the information shared by the Medical Officer of Dr. YSPGMC, Nahan. True it is that at the time of delivery of child victim/prosecutrix was minor, but bare perusal of her statement recorded under Section 173 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita reveals that she never disclosed to the petitioner that she is minor, rather she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has been living as wife of the petitioner since February, 2024. As per own case of the prosecution, victim/prosecutrix after her having solemnized marriage with the petitioner had been residing at her matrimonial house. No doubt, consent, if any, of the victim/prosecutrix may not be of much relevance as far as present case is concerned for the reason that at the time of commission of offence, victim/prosecutrix was minor, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that since February, 2024 victim/prosecutrix is residing in the house of her in-laws and she was also blessed with one child.

¶22

To substantiate factum with regard to marriage, which cannot be said to be valid at this juncture, petitioner also placed on record photographs suggestive of the fact that marriage interse him and the victim/prosecutrix was

¶23

-6-

¶24

solemnized in the presence of elder family members as per custom of the area. Though, victim/prosecutrix is minor, but certainly having taken note of her statement recorded under Section 173 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that victim/prosecutrix and petitioner were in romantic relationship and they wanted to solemnize marriage, petitioner believing victim/prosecutrix major proceeded to solemnize marriage. However, subsequently it came to be transpired that victim/prosecutrix is minor.

¶25

8. 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

¶26

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 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

¶27

-7-

¶28

mark on his forehead of being an offender. Relevant Para of

¶29

afore judgment read as under:

¶30

“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.

¶31

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

¶32

9. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in

¶33

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

¶34

-8-

¶35

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.

¶36

10. 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.

¶37

11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court

¶38

Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced 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

¶39

-9-

¶40

person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶41

12. 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.

¶42

13. 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.

¶43

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is

¶44

-10-

¶45

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:

¶46

(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;

¶47

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

¶48

(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

¶49

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

¶50

15. 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 this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶52

16. 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.

¶53

17. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however,

¶54

-11-

¶55

it may verify the order from the High Court website or

¶56

otherwise.

¶57

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶58

June 15, 2026 ( shankar )

Rajesh v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. State of Hp and Another

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

Praveen Vs State of Hp and Another

Lobhi Ram Vs State of Hp

Ludar Mani Vs Leela Dhar Sharma and another

Mahinder Singh Vs Anish Thakur and Anr.

Pardeep Sachdev and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Surat Singh Vs State