2026:HHC:32383 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1361 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Devu Ram @ Devi Ram .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ..…Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Deepmala Sharma, Advocate. 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. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Devu Ram @ Devi Ram, who is behind the bars since 05.12.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.67 of 2025, dated 24.11.2025, under Sections 64 & 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2026:HHC:32383 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Ramesh Chand, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 24.11.2025, victim-prosecutrix, who at the time of commission of offence was minor, got her statement recorded under Section 173 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, stating therein that she was 8th pass and on account of matrimonial discord, her parents were living separately. She alleged that two years back, one of the relatives Khem Chand had got her marriage solemnized with his nephews Sant Ram and Sanju, who are behind the bars. She alleged that 7-8 months back, her paternal uncle (tauji) sexually assaulted her against her wishes when she was alone at her home. She alleged that repeatedly she was sexually assaulted against her wishes by above named person and now she has become pregnant. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since 05.12.2025, he is behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. -3- 2026:HHC:32383 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the 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 offence, alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence of victim-prosecutrix, sexually assaulted her against her wishes on many occasions, and thereafter extended threats to do away with her life in case she discloses such facts to anybody. He states that since petitioner is accused of heinous crime, he does not deserve any leniency. Otherwise also, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he will not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm to the victim/ prosecutrix, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix was allegedly sexually assaulted against her wishes 5-7 months back prior to -4- 2026:HHC:32383 lodging of FIR. FIR came to be lodged when complainant became pregnant. Admittedly, victim-prosecutrix is already married to two persons, namely, Sanju and Sant Ram, who at present are behind bars. RFSL report adduced on record clearly reveals that bail petitioner is not the biological father of the child in the womb of victim-prosecutrix. 6. No doubt, statement of child victim is sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the accused under relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, but having taken note of the fact that victim/prosecutrix is already married to two persons, coupled with the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 7-8 months in lodging FIR, this Court is persuaded to consider the case of petitioner for grant of bail, especially when he has already suffered for approximately 8 months. There is no explanation rendered on record qua delay in lodging the FIR. There is nothing on the record to suggest that effort, if any, ever came to be made at the instance of the prosecutrix to make a complaint to her parents or other family members regarding indecent behaviour of the petitioner. Once medical evidence adduced on record is not sufficient to connect the accused with commission of offence, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be considered. -5- 2026:HHC:32383 7. Since victim/prosecutrix specifically alleged that she became pregnant after being sexually assaulted by petitioner, coupled with the fact that such claim of her was not found to be correct, as is evident from the report submitted by the RFSL, wherein petitioner was not shown the biological father of the child in the womb of the prosecutrix, this Court sees no reason to let petitioner, who is 60 years old, incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when his guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record. 8. Moreover, this Court finds that considerable time is likely to be consumed in the conclusion of trial, because till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. If during the pendency of the trial, petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period that would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on -6- 2026:HHC:32383 record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. 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. 11. 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 -7- 2026:HHC:32383 person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is -8- 2026:HHC:32383 allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 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. 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 this Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. 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. 17. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, -9- 2026:HHC:32383 it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 04, 2026 (shankar)