1 2026:HHC:3352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2919 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.1.2026 Date of Decision: 23.1.2026. Vipan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has &led the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 58 of 2025, dated 4.10.2025, registered at Police Station, Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of o3ences punishable under Section 64(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual O3ences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Asha Worker made a complaint to the police that one minor girl 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 1 2026:HHC:3352 of her village had become pregnant, which was discovered during the linkage of the Aadhar Card of the all pregnant females. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner and the victim had solemnised the marriage in the temple. The family members had agreed to the marriage and promised to solemnise a formal marriage after the victim attained majority. The victim became sick on 4.10.2025, and she was found to be pregnant. The petitioner and the victim were in a romantic relationship with each other, and their family members accepted the relationship. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by the &ling of a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that she was linking the Aadhar Card with the Jacha-Bacha Card of the pregnant females residing within her jurisdiction. One card was not getting linked with the Aadhar Card. The Aadhar Card was checked, and the age of the female was found to be less than 18. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR. The petitioner was arrested. The o3ence committed by 3 1 2026:HHC:3352 the petitioner is heinous. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties were in a romantic relationship with each other, which was accepted by their family members. The victim got pregnant, and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner. The victim will su3er because her child will be deprived of the love and care of her father. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents 2025 SCC Online SC 1200 and State of U.P. Vs. Anirudh 2026 SCC Online SC 40 in support of her submission. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had committed a heinous o3ence. He would intimidate the witnesses 4 1 2026:HHC:3352 in case of his release on bail. Hence, 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 Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is con&rmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or 5 1 2026:HHC:3352 otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to $nd whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious o%ences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to in&ict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 6 1 2026:HHC:3352 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the o%ence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would su3er from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors 7 1 2026:HHC:3352 which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the o%ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or &eeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o%ence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in&uenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is  Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu 8 1 2026:HHC:3352 Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the o%ence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the complaint was not made by the victim or her family members but by Asha Worker, who was unable to link the Jacha-Bacha Card with the victim’s Aadhar Card. The Court had interacted with the victim through video conferencing, and the victim stated that she had married the petitioner, and the child was conceived because of the marriage between the parties. Therefore, the present case does not show the forcible sexual intercourse but a consensual 9 1 2026:HHC:3352 intercourse. The legislature has enacted the POCSO Act to protect minors from everybody, including themselves and the consent of the minor is not material; however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the Right to Privacy to Adolescents (supra) that punishing a person for entering into a romantic relationship with another would amount to the punishment of the child. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Anirudh (supra) that the legislature should introduce a Romeo-Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of the law. This Court also quashed the FIR registered under the POCSO Act when the parties had married each other in Ranjeet Kumar v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1625 and Pratap Singh Vs. State of HP and another, Cr.MMO No.813 of 2023, decided on 26.2.2024. Hon’ble Supreme Court also quashed the proceedings where the parties were married to each other in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614. Therefore, keeping the petitioner behind bars will not serve any fruitful purpose but will result in depriving the victim and her child of the company and care of the petitioner. 10 1 2026:HHC:3352 11. The petitioner asserted that he was not involved in the commission of any other o3ence. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report &led by the State. 12. The State asserted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses. This submission will not help the State. The victim is claiming that the relationship with the petitioner was consensual, and there is no question of intimidation. The police have &led the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions:- (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he inNuence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 11 1 2026:HHC:3352 (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 his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received 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 &ve days from the date of the change. 14. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to &le a petition for cancellation of the bail. 15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of District Jail, Rajpura, District Chamba, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Vacation Judge 23rd January, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.01.23 16:59:58 +0530