IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.775, 815, 816, 823 and 824 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 775 of 2026 Abhilash Dogra ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 815 of 2026 Balwant Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 816 of 2026 Sheela Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 823 of 2026 Rajinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 824 of 2026 Reena Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents 2 Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order(s) dated 6.5.2026, 12.5.2026 and 13.5.2026, whereby bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 60 of 2026, dated 30.04.2026, under Section 64(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4, 6 & 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, registered at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed the status report and Insp. Nirmal Singh, SHO & Insp. Dev Raj, Police Station Nadaun, have also come present with records. Records perused and returned. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officers present in the Court, states that petitioners have joined the investigation and at present, nothing remains to be recovered from them. He states that otherwise also, it has emerged in the evidence that though at the time of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was 17 year and 8 months old, but in the year 2025, victim-prosecutrix and 3 bail petitioner had solemnized love marriage and since then, victim- prosecutrix had been living in the house of the bail petitioner. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 30.4.2026, police received information from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhanota that two ladies, who are pregnant have come for check up. Since victim-prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was minor, matter was reported to the police. Police after having received afore information reached Civil Hospital Dhaneta and recorded the statement of victim-prosecutrix, who disclosed her date of birth to be 26.8.2008, meaning thereby at that time, she was 17 years and 8 months’ old. In her statement given to police, victim-prosecutrix, who is otherwise present in the Court, stated that she has solemnized marriage with petitioner and today, she has come to the hospital for her check up. Since at the time of commission of afore offences, victim-prosecutrix was minor coupled with the fact that she had solemnized marriage with bail petitioner namely Abhilash Dogra, police besides lodging case against him, also lodged cases against their family members i.e. Balwant Singh, Sheela Devi, Rajinder Kumar and Reena Kumari. 4 4. Pursuant to orders dated 6.5.2026, 12.5.2026 and 13.5.2026, complainant-victim-prosecutrix has come present along with her parents and parents of the bail petitioner. 5. Victim-prosecutrix, who has come present along with her parents, states that she of her own volition and without any external pressure had joined the company of the bail petitioner. She stated that FIR is result of misunderstanding because neither same was lodged by her nor by her family members, rather matter came to be reported to police by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhaneta, where she along with bail petitioner and other family members had come for check up. She stated that since she and bail petitioner have already solemnized marriage with each other and she is four months’ pregnant coupled with the fact that she is living happily with her in-laws, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. 6. Parents of the victim-prosecutrix, who are also present in the Court state on behalf of victim-prosecutrix that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have come present before this court to make statement that their daughter and bail petitioner have already solemnized marriage with each other. FIR is result of 5 misunderstanding because neither they nor victim-prosecutrix made a complaint against the bail petitioner, rather information was received by police from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhanota, where they had come for check up. They stated that since their daughter after marriage is living happily with her in laws and bail petitioner coupled with the fact that they are also expecting a child, they do not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that though investigation is complete, but challan is yet to be submitted in the competent court of law. He states that though petitioners herein are accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 64(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4, 6 & 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, but once victim-prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage, which is otherwise void coupled with the fact that she is pregnant and at present residing with her in-laws, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 8. True it is that victim-prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident was minor, but once it is apparent from her statement that in the year 2025, she has solemnized marriage with the bail petitioner coupled with the 6 fact that she is four months’ pregnant, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars, rather that would unnecessarily create problem in the married life of victim-prosecutrix. Moreover this court finds that on account of statement given by victim- prosecutrix and her parents, chances of conviction of bail petitioners are very remote and bleak. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Kirubakaran v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 has categorically held that where the child was born as a result of love and not lust and the victim expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life, the incarceration of the husband would disrupt the family unit and cause irreparable hardship to the victim, child and the social fabric. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads 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 the 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, but 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 7 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. No doubt, petitioner-Abhilash Dogra, is accused of commission of heinous crime punishable under Section 64(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, but having regard to the subsequent development, wherein victim-prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with bail petitioner and she is also pregnant coupled with the fact that matter came to be reported to the police by Medical Officer, before whom victim-prosecutrix was brought for check up, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, because in that event, ultimate sufferer would be victim-prosecutrix, who would otherwise need support of the bail petitioner during pregnancy and post delivery. 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, as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioners indefinitely during trial. 8 12. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:-In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI 2017 (5) SCC 218, The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “ This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the 9 jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 13. 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. 10 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 15. Consequently, in view of the above, order(s) dated 6.5.2026,12.5.2026 and 13.5.2026, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a. They shall make themselves 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. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 11 17. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the main case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the concerned authority, who shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. May 15, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge