IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.1043 of 2026 Decided on: 25.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Pradeep Singh ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. HC Kapil Dev No.501, PS Shillai, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner Pradeep Singh, who is behind bars since 26.04.2026, 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 10.03.2026, registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 64, 137(2) 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 16.06.2026, respondent- State has filed status report and HC Kapil Dev has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 10.03.2026, Police received intimation from the office of Project Coordinator Child Helpline, Sirmour, through email with regard to child marriage of the victim-prosecutrix, aged 17 years (name withheld to protect her identity). Through the aforesaid communication, police came to be informed that marriage of victim-prosecutrix had been solemnized with the person namely Pradeep Singh i.e. bail-petitioner herein and a child has also been born out of their wedlock. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner, who is behind bars since 26.04.2026. 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. Rajan Kahol, 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. Kahol, states that 2 there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner solemnized marriage with the victim- prosecutrix, who at that time was minor. He states that a female child has been born from the wedlock of the victim-prosecutrix and the bail-petitioner. Mr. Kahol further submits that the statement of the victim-prosecutrix indicates that she was a consenting party, but such fact may not be relevant, because at the time of the alleged incident, if any, the victim-prosecutrix was a minor. Lastly, Mr. Kahol states that in the event of bail-petitioner enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix. 5. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, victim- prosecutrix has come present before this Court along with her father. She states that she does not wish to prosecute the case against the petitioner, who is innocent. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that FIR was not lodged at the behest of victim-prosecutrix or her parents, rather same came to be lodged on the basis of information shared by the office of Project Coordinator, Child Helpline, Sirmour, wherein it was disclosed that victim-prosecutrix, who is 17 years old, has solemnized marriage with the bail-petitioner. Though careful perusal of statement of the victim-prosecutrix 3 recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita reveals that she has solemnized marriage in Village Kandolani, but same is silent about as to the identity of the person with whom she has solemnized marriage. In afore statement, she simply stated that some times, she used to visit the house of the bail-petitioner. Besides above, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination, as a result thereof, paternity of the child born from the womb of the victim-prosecutrix has not been established. Even during proceedings of the case, victim-prosecutrix stated before this Court that bail-petitioner has not committed any wrong and she shall have no objection in case he is enlarged on bail. 7. No doubt, victim-prosecutrix is minor and she has delivered one child, but there is nothing on record to suggest that bail-petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes and child born from the womb of the victim-prosecutrix is of the bail- petitioner. Since there is no cogent and convincing evidence with regard to sexual assault, if any, committed by the bail-petitioner, coupled with the fact that he is the father of the child born to the victim-prosecutrix, there appears to be no justification to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when guilt of the bail-petitioner is yet to be established by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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 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 7 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. 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; 8 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. 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 25, 2026 (sunil) 9