IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.923 of 2026 Decided on: 04.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Praveen ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar Manget, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. SI Pritam Singh, Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, HP, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner Praveen, who is behind bars since 29.03.2026, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.22 of 2026, dated 28.03.2026, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 137(2), 65 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Pursuant to order dated 25.05.2026, respondent- State has filed status report and SI Pritam Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 28.03.2026, complainant (name withheld to protect her identity) lodged a complaint that her daughter, aged 15 years and studying in 9th Class, had gone to Bhangyani, Haripurdhar Mandir, Himachal Pradesh and had not returned. She alleged that at about 10:00 p.m. person namely Sunder Singh informed her that his son Parveen has made her daughter elope with him. Complainant alleged that she had requested the aforesaid person to send her daughter back, but once her daughter did not return, she lodged a complaint, alleging therein that Parveen has made her daughter elope with him for solemnizing marriage. In afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner, who is behind bars since 29.03.2026. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner has been falsely implicated because he had committed no wrong against the victim- 2 prosecutrix, who of her own volition and without any external pressure, had joined his company. While making this Court peruse, statement of the victim-prosecutrix recorded in the learned trial Court (Annexure P-2) Mr. Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel states that bare perusal of the same nowhere suggests that petitioner herein, taking undue advantage of the innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, rather it was the victim-prosecutrix herself, who came to the residence of the petitioner with the intention of solemnizing marriage with him. He states that though consent, if any, of the minor may be immaterial, but once there is no medical evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that victim- prosecutrix was sexually assaulted against her wishes, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail-petitioner behind bars for indefinite period during trial. 5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, 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. Mr. Panwar, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner, taking undue advantage of the 3 innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix, not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also extended threats, as a result thereof, she failed to make a statement before the Court. However, Mr. Panwar fairly admits that victim-prosecutrix has resiled from her statement recorded in the learned trial Court and she had refused to undergo medical examination, as a result thereof, there is no medical evidence adduced on record to prove the guilt of the bail-petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that petitioner and victim-prosecutrix were previously acquainted with each other and had been meeting frequently. On the date of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix went to the house of the petitioner, from where father of the bail petitioner apprised mother of the victim-prosecutrix with regard to presence of her daughter in his house. However, complainant, who happens to be mother of the victim-prosecutrix, waited for three days to lodge FIR. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, victim-prosecutrix stated that she had gone to her paternal aunt’s house along with her friend Ravina. Subsequently in her statement recorded before learned trial Court, she categorically stated that nothing wrong had been committed upon her by the petitioner and she shall have no 4 objection in case he is enlarged on bail. Complainant also turned hostile and made statement that petitioner had not committed wrong upon her daughter and she shall have no objection in case he is enlarged on bail. 7. Leaving everything aside, victim-prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination, as a result thereof, there is no medical evidence adduced on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Since in the case at hand, victim-prosecutrix, who is minor, has already resiled from her earlier version, prosecution could have placed heavy reliance upon the medical evidence, if any, adduced on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner. However, no medical evidence has been adduced on record, coupled with the fact that both complainant as well as victim- prosecutrix have turned hostile, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail-petitioner behind bars for indefinite period during trial, especially when his guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an 5 indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the 6 fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when  required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the 7 dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 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 amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 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. 8 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail-petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the bail-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: 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; b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; 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 d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. e. He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 9 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. 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. 16. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 04, 2026 (sunil) 10