1 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.2077 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Decided on: 12.09.2025 Poonam ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R No. 83/25 dated 5.5.2025, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 64 and 137(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 (BNS) and Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was found missing on 04.05.2025. The informant made a complaint to the police expressing her suspicion about the involvement of petitioner and the co-accused. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The victim was recovered on 25.06.2025, and she made a statement under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner had no criminal intention. The victim denied the petitioner’s involvement in her statement made before the learned Magistrate. Pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. 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 the informant and victim were residing together. The petitioner and the co-accused were her neighbours. The informant left for her job on 04.05.2025 at 7:00 A.M. She returned on 4:30 P.M., and the victim was found missing. The informant searched for the victim but could not trace her. She called the petitioner and the co-accused, who disclosed that the victim had accompanied them, and she was dropped off at the Ludhiana Bus Stand. The police arrested the petitioner and the 3 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) co-accused. The police searched for the victim and recovered her on 25.06.2025. Victim revealed in her statement that the petitioner and the co-accused had taken her with them to Ludhiana from where she had accompanied Arvind Kumar. The victim’s medical examination was conducted. Her samples were preserved. Arvind Kumar was arrested. He was medically examined and after his medical examination, the Medical Officer reported that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Samples were sent to SFSL, Junga and as per the report, the DNA profile obtained from the pubic hair of Arvind matched the DNA profile of the victim. A charge sheet was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed for consideration of charge on 22.09.2025. The petitioner would abscond in case of her release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not named by the victim in her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate. The 4 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) charge sheet has been filed, and further detention of the petitioner is not justified. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had abetted a heinous crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 5 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) 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] .] 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts against the superficial examination of the bail consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177: “18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to com- bat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A photocopy of the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Magistrate shows that the victim had left home voluntarily because she was being assaulted at her home. She 6 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) specifically stated that the petitioner and co-accused had not assisted her in going to Ludhiana, and she had accompanied the accused, Arvind, to Ludhiana. Therefore, the victim’s statement does not show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime at this stage. Hence, the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing 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 SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received 7 ( 2025:HHC:31292 ) 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. 13. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 14. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 15. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12 September 2025. (yogesh) YOGESH SHARMA Digitally signed by YOGESH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 12:50:24 +0530