2025:HHC:21210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1443 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Ravinder Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 98 of 2025, dated 22.03.2025 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 6 and 21 of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:21210 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the father of the victim. It was wrongly asserted that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. He has no role in the commission of the aforesaid offence. The investigation is complete. A charge sheet has been filed. The victim was stated to be 11 years old; however, she was more than 16 years old on the date of the incident. The petitioner does not have any criminal record. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that a complaint was made to the police by the informant Pramod Kumar, regarding the marriage of the victim, aged 11 years. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victim stated her age to be 14 years. She revealed during interrogation that she was married on 15.06.2024 to Ram Babu at Sheetla Mata Mandir, Nalagarh, 3 2025:HHC:21210 District Solan, H.P.. As per the school record, the victim was born on 01.01.2008 and was aged 16 years five months on the date of the incident. The offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was not found to have been committed. The challan has been filed before the Court on 08.05.2025. As per the certificate of identity, no other case was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. A.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. A.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not heinous. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that a minor girl was married, which is a violation of Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The offence is heinous; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 2025:HHC:21210 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 5 2025:HHC:21210 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the 6 2025:HHC:21210 Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 7 2025:HHC:21210 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The petitioner is the father of the victim, and as per allegations, he married the victim to Ram Babu when she was aged 16 years and 5 months. These allegations, prima facie, show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. 13. Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 provides for the rigorous imprisonment of two years for solemnising a child marriage. The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2025, and the charges have not yet been framed. The trial of the petitioner is not likely to be concluded within two years due to the huge pendency of criminal cases before the learned Trial Courts in Himachal Pradehs. The police have not mentioned any reason for the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the punishment provided for the same, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 8 2025:HHC:21210 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the present case, subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 9 2025:HHC:21210 15. 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 the Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, solan, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th July, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e2258 78f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec9393752 91962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f0 1f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-07-04 14:12:02 KARAN SINGH GULERIA