2026:HHC:35056 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1485 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Ishwar Dutt @ Sanju .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Aashish Kumar and Ms. Shivani Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Rameshwar Singh, IO, Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Ishwar Dutt @ Sanju, who is behind bars since 30.04.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.34 of 2026, dated 30.04.2026, registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, Section 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 & 8 of POCSO Act. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:35056 -2- 2. Respondent-State has filed status reports, and ASI Rameshwar Singh, IO, Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record made available to this Court reveals that that on 30.04.2026, victim- prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the identity) presented herself at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur along with her father and lodged a complaint alleging therein that in the year 2021, bail petitioner, who is her maternal uncle in relation, took her to nearby rivulet (khad) and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that since the petitioner extended threats that in case she discloses anything to anyone, he would do harm to her parents, she was unable to disclose the matter to her parents. She alleged that thereafter, on 11.12.2025, while she had gone to Solan for up-dation of her Aadhaar card, above named petitioner again met her near Giri Pul and took lift with her parents. She alleged that while she was sitting in the rear seat, bail petitioner Ishwar Dutt behaved indecently and attempted to touch her private parts. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. 4. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 2026:HHC:35056 -3- 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve leniency, rather, needs to be dealt with severely. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of victim-prosecutrix not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also extended threats. He states that delay in lodging FIR occurred on account of the fact that at the time of first incident, victim-prosecutrix was merely 11 years of age and she was also under threat. He states that since statement of victim-prosecutrix is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, who in that event may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix is alleged to have been first sexually assaulted in the year 2021 when she was approximately 11 years old. The second alleged incident of indecent behavior and attempt to outrage the modesty of victim-prosecutrix is stated to have occurred on 11.12.2023, whereas FIR came to be lodged on 30.04.2026. No plausible explanation has been rendered on record 2026:HHC:35056 -4- qua delay in lodging the FIR, save and except the fact that victim- prosecutrix was under threat. Moreover, this Court finds that at the time of commission of second incident, which occurred on 11.12.2025, victim-prosecutrix was not alone in the vehicle, rather her father and brother were also sitting in the same car, but she made no complaint qua indecent behaviour of the petitioner at that relevant time. Moreover, it is highly unbelievable that one would dare to cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix in the presence of her father and brother. True it is that at the time of commission of offence on both the occasions, victim-prosecutrix was minor, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than three months. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 8. 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 2026:HHC:35056 -5- 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing 2026:HHC:35056 -6- bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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. 12. 12. 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. 13. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 14. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from 2026:HHC:35056 -7- 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 19th August, 2026 Rajeev Raturi