2026:HHC:15080 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.654 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Sachin Rana .....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. Vinod Kumar Suman, 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 Parma Nand, PS Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Sachin Rana, who is behind the bars since 01.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.71 of 2025, dated 30.12.2025, under Section 64 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur. 2. In terms of order dated 21.04.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Parma Nand, PS Shillai, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:15080 -2- 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 29.11.2025, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld to protect the identity) made complaint to Deputy Commissioner, alleging therein that her mother, who lives with some other person, gives her beatings and thereafter, pursuant to directions issued by Deputy Commissioner, she was directed to be lodged in Balika Ashram. She alleged that in the month of October, 2025, she went to Paonta Sahib, Sirmaur, and lived in the house of Sachin Rana i.e. petitioner herein, with whom she had come in contact through ‘Snapchat’. She alleged that above named person developed physical relationship with her. Since victim- prosecutrix was not feeling well, matter came to be reported on CCTNS portal and thereafter, she was taken to hospital. Medical Officer, attending upon the victim-prosecutrix, opined that victim-prosecutrix is pregnant. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. 4. Since investigation in the case at hand is 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. 5. Mr. Vinod Kumar Suman, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse record as well as statement made by victim-prosecutrix recorded 2026:HHC:15080 -3- under Section 183 of BNSS, submitted that victim-prosecutrix, who had disclosed her age to be 18 years of her own volition and without there being any external pressure joined the company of the bail petitioner, with whom she otherwise wants to solemnise marriage. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further submitted that as per afore statement of victim-prosecutrix, no wrong was committed by the petitioner against her wishes. He submitted that petitioner is behind bars for almost four months and till date, charge has not been framed and as such, he otherwise deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of completion of investigation, stated 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 stated that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of minority of victim-prosecutrix sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as a result thereof, she got pregnant and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Police, while registering FIR against him. He further submitted that though there is nothing on record to show consent, if any, of victim-prosecutrix, but even if it is 2026:HHC:15080 -4- presumed that there is any consent, same is immaterial for the reason that at the time of commission of offence, she was minor. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner had come in contact with each other through Snapchat. It also emerge from the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS that both bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix wanted to solemnise marriage. As per own statement of the victim-prosecutrix, she had disclosed her age to be 18 years at the time of her meeting with bail petitioner and it also emerges from the status report as well as other material adduced on record that victim-prosecutrix after coming from Dharamshala, straightaway went to the house of bail petitioner, where she was allegedly sexually assaulted. As per prosecution story, age of the victim-prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence was 17 years. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of victim-prosecutrix sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but this Court, having noticed conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, which is apparent from the statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS, is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, rather this Court has no hesitation to conclude that victim- 2026:HHC:15080 -5- prosecutrix is capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of bail petitioner, with whom she otherwise wanted to solemnise marriage. 8. No doubt, bail petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 64 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Taking note of statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, coupled with the fact that she wants to solemnise marriage with the bail petitioner, on attaining majority, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for more than four months. 9. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court held that appellant and the victim are not only legally married, but they are also in their family way and while considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, Hon’ble Apex Court has discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment held that the victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is 2026:HHC:15080 -6- dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Relevant Para of afore judgment read as under: “9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself. 10. We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.” 10. 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 2026:HHC:15080 -7- 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 2026:HHC:15080 -8- 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 2026:HHC:15080 -9- 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 06th May, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)