2026:HHC:12144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.170 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Himanshu @ Harsh .....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. Karan Singh Kanwar, 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. ASI Dalip Kumar, IO, PS Paonta Sahib, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Himanshu @ Harsh, who is behind the bars since July 2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0171/2025, dated 26.07.2025, under Sections 64 and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Dalip Kumar, IO, PS Paonta Sahib, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 26.07.2025, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:12144 -2- identity) came present before the Police Station Paonta Sahib for lodging complaint against the bail petitioner. She alleged that on 26.07.2025, bail petitioner telephonically called her at his residence, however, mother of the victim-prosecutrix also went to the house of the bail petitioner, where allegedly altercation took place inter se mother of the bail petitioner and victim- prosecutrix. Allegedly mother of the bail petitioner hurled abuses at mother of the victim-prosecutrix as well as victim-prosecutrix. Again on 15.06.2025, bail petitioner messaged victim-prosecutrix to come at his residence and thereafter he allegedly behaved indecently and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail 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. 5. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated, because medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere suggests sexual assault, if any, upon the victim-prosecutrix. He states that dispute, if any, is inter se mother of the bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner has been made a scapegoat. He states that if 2026:HHC:12144 -3- the statement of the victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that victim-prosecutrix had grouse, if any, against the mother of the bail petitioner, but not against the bail petitioner. While referring to the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the bail application filed by the petitioner, Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that victim-prosecutrix had categorically stated before the Court below that she shall have no objection in case petitioner is granted bail and action is taken against his mother, but yet Court below rejected the bail petition. He submitted that since Challan already stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be allowed. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of filing of 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 the him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that though medical evidence adduced on record does not support the case of the prosecution, but mere statement of the victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she specifically stated that she was sexually assaulted 2026:HHC:12144 -4- against her wishes, is sufficient to conclude the guilt of the bail petitioner, who, taking undue advantage of minority and innocence of the victim-prosecutrix, not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also hurled abuses. 7. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that vide order dated 09.04.2026, this Court had called upon Investigating Officer to apprise the victim-prosecutrix with regard to filing of the case at hand, enabling her to file objections, if any, to the bail petition. Investigating Officer present in Court states that though intimation with regard to pendency of the present case was given to the victim-prosecutrix through her mother, but fact remains that she has not come present. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix reside in the same colony and they are known to each other for long. Firstly on 26.07.2025, bail petitioner called victim-prosecutrix to his home, but at relevant time, victim-prosecutrix though visited the house of the bail petitioner, but she was accompanied by her mother and on that day, some altercation took place inter se mother of the bail petitioner and mother of victim-prosecutrix. It is only after aforesaid incident, FIR came to be lodged against the bail petitioner, wherein incident of 15.06.2025 with regard to sexual assault also came to be reported. There is no explanation 2026:HHC:12144 -5- rendered on record qua delay in lodging FIR. Since victim- prosecutrix was allegedly sexually assaulted against her wishes on 15.06.2025 and thereafter on 26.07.2025, victim-prosecutrix visited the house of the bail petitioner, delay in lodging the FIR, which admittedly came to be lodged on 26.07.2025, may be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9. Moreover, statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, if perused in its entirety, clearly reveals that grouse, if any, of the victim-prosecutrix is/was against the mother of the bail petitioner. Though in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, victim- prosecutrix stated that for 2-3 minutes, bail petitioner committed wrong act, but yet made a statement before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that she shall have no objection in case bail is granted to the petitioner and action is taken against his mother. Though nothing specific has been mentioned with regard to friendship or relationship inter se bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix, but certainly having taken note of her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, coupled with the fact that they were living in one vicinity, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that both victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner were having prior acquaintance and they had been meeting frequently. 2026:HHC:12144 -6- 10. No doubt, consent, if any, of the victim-prosecutrix may not be relevant for concluding the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner, because at the time of incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor, but having noticed conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, coupled with her statement given before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby she herself stated that bail may be granted to the bail petitioner, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial. Moreover, careful perusal of medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution does not support the case of the prosecution and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner during trial, especially when guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 11. 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 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 2026:HHC:12144 -7- 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 2026:HHC:12144 -8- 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 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.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; 2026:HHC:12144 -9- (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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17th April, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)