Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

2026:HHC:21322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.886 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026

________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent
________________________________________________________________ *Coram:*
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

________________________ For the Petitioner:	________________________________________ Mr. Anil Kumar Manget and Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, 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.
	HC Om Prakash, No.511, Police Station Nahan, present along with record.

¶6

________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Bail petitioner, namely Naresh Kumar, who is behind

¶8

the bars since 22.02.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.27/2026, dated 22.02.2026, under Section 64 of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and HC Om Prakash, No.511, Police Station Nahan, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶10

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 22.02.2026, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the identity), aged 12 years, lodged a complaint at Police Station,

¶11

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

¶12

2026:HHC:21322

¶13

-2-

¶14

detailed hereinabove, alleging therein that for last two years, she had been residing at Nahan with her maternal aunt. She alleged that on 21.02.2026, while her maternal aunt along with her daughter had gone to Mahipur, she was alone with her maternal uncle and his cousin brother Shubham. She alleged that on afore date, her maternal uncle, i.e. petitioner herein, not only behaved indecently, but also attempted to outrage her modesty. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and for last three months, he is behind bars.

¶15

4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

¶16

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, 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, rather needs to be dealt with severely. He states that there is ample evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of bail petitioner, attempted to sexually assault the victimprosecutrix against her wishes. He states that since statement of victim-prosecutrix is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of

¶17

2026:HHC:21322

¶18

-3-

¶19

law, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge bail petitioner on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶20

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though victim-prosecutrix, who is 12 years old, alleged that her maternal uncle behaved indecently, but subsequently, while getting her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the learned Magistrate, she gave altogether different version. In her statement given before the learned Magistrate, she stated that nothing wrong had happened against her, rather on the date of alleged incident, her maternal uncle had scolded her for not studying.

¶21

7. No doubt, bail petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 64 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but since victim-prosecutrix has virtually resiled from her earlier statement recorded under Section 193 of BNSS, on the basis of which, FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

¶22

8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till

¶23

2026:HHC:21322

¶24

-4-

¶25

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.

¶26

9. 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.

¶27

10. 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 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

¶28

2026:HHC:21322

¶29

-5-

¶30

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶31

11. 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.

¶32

12. 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.

¶33

13. 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 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

¶34

2026:HHC:21322

¶35

-6-

¶36

satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶37

(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;

¶38

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

¶39

(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

¶40

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

¶41

14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the 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.

¶42

15. 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.

¶43

16. 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, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

¶44

03^rd June, 2026

¶45

( Rajeev Raturi )

¶46

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

Naresh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar 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

Kamla Devi Vs Golf Link Finance and Resorts Limitesd

Abhishek Vs State of Hp

Sachin Kumar Vs State of Hp

Sant Ram Vs State of Hp

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp