Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:16784 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. : 1110 of 2025 Reserved on : 23.05.2025 Decided on : 30.05.2025 Jatinder Kumar
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General assisted by ASI Nikhil, Women Police Station, Chamba, H.P. Child victim with Mr. Rahul Jaisingh Advocate, through Video Conferencing. Virender Singh, Judge. ApplicantJatinder Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No.59 of 2024, dated 03.12.2024, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16784 registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), with Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated by the Police, in this case. 3. As per the applicant, he and the child victim belong to a Tribal community and as per their customs, they entered into the wedlock with the consent of their parents and living peacefully. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that no complaint qua the missing or taking away the victim was lodged by her family members. 5. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the applicant and the child victim are living together after their marriage. 3 2025:HHC:16784
6. Asserting the fact that the child victim is still residing with him, it has further pleaded that the applicant has been framed, in a false case. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the statement of the child victim, recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 7. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete. 8.
Apart from the above, the applicant has put forward his age as 20 years, as one of the grounds to seek the relief of bail, as according to him, he is having the liability to look after his old aged parents, child and wife. 9. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving the bail application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, however, his application was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order, dated 19th February, 2025. 10. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain
4 2025:HHC:16784 undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 12. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 03.12.2024, the Gynecologist, Dr. Priya Jaswal of Regional Hospital Chamba, has telephonically informed the police that a girl, aged about 15 years, has been borught to hospital for delivery. 12.1. Thereafter, the said information was recorded vide rapat No.13, thereafter ASI, along with other Police officials, reached at the hospital, where one Kapil Sharma, Coordinator along with Child Helpline Team, Chamba, met the police and submitted a complaint, mentioning therein, that he is Coordinator, Child Helpline Chamba. On 3.12.2024, he received an information that a minor girl has been brought to Hospital, for delivery, upon which, the complainant along
5 2025:HHC:16784 with Supervisor Reeta Kumari reached on the spot, where, he noticed that a minor girl has been admitted in labour room. Her father is present along with her. 12.2. On inquiry, the father of the said girl disclosed that he is labourer by profession and having six children, out of which four are daughters and two are sons.
His elder daughter was married and the child victim is his second daughter, aged about 15 years. Her year of birth is stated to be 2009. 12.3. As per his version, about one year ago, in the month of January, 2024, the child victim was enticed away by Jitender Kumar (applicant), however, due to poverty and social disgrace, this fact has not been reported to anyone. 12.4. Thereafter, the child victim is residing with Jitender Kumar (applicant). As per the record obtained, the date of birth of the child victim was found to be
23.06.2008. 12.5. As per the further revelations made by the father of the child victim to the Coordinator, on that day
6 2025:HHC:16784 i.e. 03.12.2024, Reeta Devi, to whom he had referred to as Kudmani/Samdhan, mother of soninlaw/daughter inlaw has telephonically informed him that the child victim is feeling labour pain, upon which, both the parties brought the child victim to Tissa Hospital, from where, she was referred to Chamba. 12.6 Lastly, he has stated that the child victim was enticed away by Jitender Kumar (applicant) and without marrying her raped her and made her to carry pregnancy. 13. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 14. On 3.12.2024, the child victim gave birth to a girl child. The child victim was taken for medicolegal examination, however, she has refused to undergo the medicolegal examination. However, her blood samples for DNA profiling were obtained. Similarly, blood samples of the newly born girl child were also obtained for DNA profiling. 7 2025:HHC:16784
15. Applicant was also associated in the investigation and was arrested. He was also medico legally examined. The child victim remained admit from 3.12.2024 to 5.12.2024. On 5.12.2024, the relevant record, pertaining to the delivery of the child victim was taken into possession. 16.
On 6.12.2024, the child victim identified the residential accommodation of the applicant and the statement of the child victim was got recorded under Section 183 BNSS, by producing her before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tissa, along with her mother, in which, she has deposed that she is married to the applicant, whereupon, she was asked to produce the relevant documents, upon which, the prosecutrix has stated that she had made a wrong statement before the Court with regard to her marriage with the applicant. However, according to the status report, the applicant has not solemnized any marriage with the child victim. 17. On finding a case having been made out against the parents of the applicant, as well as, against
8 2025:HHC:16784 Asha Worker Smt. Pushpa Devi, under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, they were bound down under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 18. As per the DNA report, the child victim was found to be the mother of the newly born baby, whereas, Jitender Kumar (applicant) was found to be biological father of the child victim. 19. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. As per the status report, there are total 34 prosecution witnesses, in this case, and the case is now fixed for 20.06.2025, for consideration of charge. 20. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 21. In this case, applicant has taken a specific defence that he and the child victim are from Scheduled Tribe community and they have solemnized the marriage with the consent of their parents.
Although, this question will be considered during the trial, but, considering the statement of Kapil Sharma, Coordinator, on whose complaint, the FIR, in question, has been
9 2025:HHC:16784 registered qua the fact that the father of the child victim referred the mother of the accused as Kudmani/ Samdhan, this fact lends credence to the stand, as taken by the applicant, qua his alleged marriage with the child victim. 22. Even otherwise, the child victim before the Court has taken a specific stand with regard to her marriage with the applicant and later on, when the proof of the same was asked, she has resiled from the statement by deposing that she has mistakenly said so. 23. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for grant of bail, in his favour, as the stand taken by the applicant, qua his marriage with the child victim, has not been denied specifically, by the child victim and her father. As such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, in the judicial custody as presumption of innocence is still available, in his favour. 24. Chances of the conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright, as such, no
10 2025:HHC:16784 useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 25. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pretrial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of law. 26. The applicant is permanent resident of District Chamba, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for trial. 27.
Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial arising out of FIR No.59 of 2024, dated 03.12.2024 registered under Sections 363, and 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/, with one surety,
11 2025:HHC:16784 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 28. This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
“a) That the applicant shall make herself 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;
b) That the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) That the applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Office; and d) That the applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.”
29. Any of the observations made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application. 30. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
12 2025:HHC:16784 the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/petitioner. 31.
The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Districtcum Open Air Jail, Chamba, through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software. 32. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, DistrictcumOpen Air Jail, Chamba, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Chamba. The Superintendent of Jail, Districtcum Open Air Jail, Chamba, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 30, 2025(ps)
Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.05.30 14:53:59 IST