2026:HHC:7850 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 198 of 2026 Date of Decision:17.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Ranjit Singh, who is behind the bars since14.10.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.193 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025, under Sections 65(2), 126(2), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:7850 2 Constable Sunil Kumar No.452 has come present with the record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 14.10.2025, victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) aged 12 years, came present at police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh alongwith her parents for filing complaint against bail petitioner. Victim/prosecutrix, while claiming herself to be studying in Class-7th, alleged that two months back while she alongwith her younger brother was going to school, bail petitioner stopped her path and slapped his brother. She alleged that bail petitioner forced her brother to run away from the place and thereafter, he sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She further alleged that when she started weeping, bail petitioner kept knife on her neck and extended threats that in case she discloses this incident to anyone, he would eliminate her as well as her parents. She alleged that on account of fear, she was unable to disclose aforesaid incident to anybody. She alleged that on 10th October, 2025 when she was going to school, bail petitioner again attempted to sexually assault her, however she alongwith her brother succeeded in fleeing from that place and disclosed the entire incident to her parents. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is 2026:HHC:7850 3 complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for the reason that he had lodged complaint against the father of the victim/prosecutrix for his having indulged in animal fur trade. He contends that otherwise also, there is litigation interse his family as well as family of the victim/prosecutrix. While making this Court peruse statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that version put forth by the victim/prosecutrix with regard to her being sexually assaulted against her wishes is totally false. He states that at first instance victim/prosecutrix never disclosed to the police that he had brought the incident to the notice of her teacher, but subsequently, while getting her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, she claimed that she had disclosed the incident to her teacher, who subsequently disclosed the same to her parents. He further states that prosecution has nowhere associated the brother of the victim/prosecutrix in the investigation, who had been allegedly accompanying the victim/prosecutrix at the time of first incident as well as second incident. He further contends that medical evidence 2026:HHC:7850 4 adduced on record nowhere indicates sexual assault, if any, committed by the bail petitioner and as such, petitioner, who has been falsely implicated, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits 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 statement of the victim/prosecutrix is sufficient to conclude guilt of the accused, especially under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He states that though medical evidence adduced on record does not support the case of the prosecution as far as allegation of sexual assault is concerned, but certainly categorical statement of the victim/ prosecutrix that her passage was repeatedly obstructed by the bail petitioner and she was repeatedly extended threats to do away with her life is sufficient to hold accused guilty of his having committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He states that since petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, coupled with the fact that statement of the victim/prosecutrix is yet to be recorded, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail, 2026:HHC:7850 5 may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm the victim/ prosecutrix. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that first incident of alleged sexual assault upon the victim/prosecutrix was committed two months prior to lodging of the FIR. Though, victim/prosecutrix has attempted to render explanation qua the delay in lodging FIR by stating that since she was under constant fear, she was unable to disclose this incident to her parents. However, there is no explanation that what prevented her minor brother, who allegedly, at the time of first incident, was slapped by the petitioner, failed to inform his parents with regard to indecent behaviour of bail petitioner as well as wrongful confinement of the victim/prosecutrix. Similarly, brother of the victim/prosecutrix, aged 8 years, was again present at the time of second incident allegedly happened on 10th October, 2025, but yet police chose not to record his statement. 7. Interestingly, victim/prosecutrix in her initial statement given to the police under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, nowhere stated that she had brought factum of first incident to the knowledge of teacher, but in her subsequent statement given to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, she claimed that she had brought aforesaid incident to the 2026:HHC:7850 6 knowledge of her teacher, who subsequently disclosed the same to her parents. However, if the statement of the teacher recorded under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, nowhere suggests that the victim/prosecutrix had specifically disclosed the factum with regard to her being subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner two months prior to lodging of the FIR, rather teacher statement suggests that when he asked prosecutrix that why she does not complete her home work, she stated that she is troubled by her neighbour. She never disclosed that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by bail petitioner. School teacher in his statement recorded under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita stated that after having noticed aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix, he advised her to report the matter to her parents. There is nothing in the statement of the teacher suggestive of the fact that second incident allegedly happened on 10th October, 2025 was also brought to his notice. Rather as per own statement of the victim/prosecutirx she herself brought second incident to the notice of her parents, whereafter she alongwith her parents came to police Station for lodging the report. 8. No doubt, statement of the prosecutrix, who is admittedly 12 years old, cannot be discarded easily, but same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR. First incident had allegedly 2026:HHC:7850 7 happened two months prior to lodging of the FIR. At the time of both the incidents, younger brother of the prosecutrix was with her. As per statement of the prosecutrix, at the time of first incident, bail petitioner slapped his brother and made him to run away from the spot, but there is no explanation that why and for what reason younger brother of the prosecutrix failed to report the matter with regard to abduction and wrongful confinement of her sister to her parents. If the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita are read in conjunction, they clearly suggest that even after the first incident bail petitioner kept on troubling her, but at no point of time prior to lodging of the FIR, she made any attempt either to report the matter to her parents or school authorities. 9. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, coupled with the fact that there is delay of two months in lodging the FIR. Most importantly, medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution nowhere suggests sexual assault if any, upon the prosecutrix. Neither any external or internal injury has been found nor there is specific report with regard to forcible attempt at the behest of the petitioner to sexually assault the prosecutrix. No doubt, petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2026:HHC:7850 8 but guilt, if any, of him is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 10. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by learned court below in totality of facts and evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having taken note of aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, especially when he has already suffered for more than five months. 11. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh and another, 2026 Supreme(SC) 46, taking note of blind and misuse of POCSO Act, has proceeded to issue certain guidelines or directions, which reads as under: “ 19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also because it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well- intentioned purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on the one end children are silenced by fear 2026:HHC:7850 9 and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their advantage. The impugned judgment is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out. Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by families in opposition to relationships between young people. In Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P.32, the High Court, noted that on few occasions concern had been expressed by the Court with respect to application of the Act on consenting adolescence when it comes to consensual relationships between teenagers, four factors have been highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts to consider: “A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined. B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution. C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an important factor. D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to protect.” Crl.Misc.Bail Appl.No.18596 of 2024 [See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.]33 The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi34 the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO 2026:HHC:7850 10 cases filed at the behest of a girl’s family objecting to romantic involvement with a young boy have become common place and consequent thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein, reference is also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court35, where the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact that she had left home of her own accord observed that the application deserved consideration. This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer to Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P36, where this Court lamented the use of these Sections without specific instances or relevant details, among other cases. It is also to be stated though that no amount of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this ever-widening gap. The first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice at the point of 2023: AHC : 204171 2024: DHC: 6100 Jayantibhai Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat 2018 SCC Online Guj. 1223 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 entry. When it comes to matters such as these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound – to examine the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse participation in litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tempers aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the opposing party from unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the 2026:HHC:7850 11 profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense, the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded to above widens. Society also must match institutional reform with moral awakening. The intent and object of these legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to the opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will remain lack- luster without this deeper change. We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts noting the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat in line with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as also its progenitors. Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc. 12. In the afore judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that statement of the alleged victim should be given due consideration, but in case relationship is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution. Most importantly, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that each case should be evaluated on its individual 2026:HHC:7850 12 facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined. While stating that Courts should use their discretion wisely, Hon'ble Apex Court held that court should ensure that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to protect. 13. In the instant case, besides there being major contradictions in the statements of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, her version of having informed the school teacher is also highly doubtful on account of the statement made by the school teacher under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. Though, teacher in his statement given to the police admitted that he was informed with regard to trouble being caused to the victim/prosecutrix by the prosecutrix, but he specifically denied factum with regard to his having informed act of sexual assault, if any, committed by the petitioner. He also disputed that he after having heard the prosecutrix had reported the matter to her parents. Otherwise also, as per own statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, she had brought alleged both the incidents to her parents after occurrence of 10th October, 2025. 2026:HHC:7850 13 14. 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 and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period during the trial, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 15. 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 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: 2026:HHC:7850 14 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 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 2026:HHC:7850 15 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 16. 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. 17. 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 2026:HHC:7850 16 punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 18. 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. 19. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount each, 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. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him. 2026:HHC:7850 17 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of 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 March 17,2026 (shankar)