IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No.731 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Satish Kumar, who is behind bars since 16.1.2026, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.5 of 2026 dated 15.1.2026, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “Act”). 2 2. In terms of order dated 30.4.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Satish Kumar, PS. Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present with record. Complainant victim- prosecutrix has also come present pursuant to intimation given to her by the Investigating Officer in terms of afore order. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 14.1.2026, police after having received telephonic information from Nahan Hospital, that one minor girl has been brought for delivery, reached the hospital and recorded the statement of girl, who stated that she is 12th pass and for the past four years, has been frequently talking and meeting to bail petitioner Satish Kumar. Allegedly, in the month of May 2025, bail petitioner, made her elope with him and since then, she had been residing at his residence at Mandoli Ghat. She alleged that during afore period, bail petitioner developed physical relations with her as a result of which, on 14.1.2026, she has delivered one child. Since at the time of the alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor i.e. 17 years and 9 months, FIR in question came to be lodged against the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars. 3 4. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that as per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, she had been residing with the bail petitioner since May 2025 of her own volition. He states that though in the year 2025, victim-prosecutrix was minor, but it is also a fact that victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner had solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock, one child has also been born. He states that now victim-prosecutrix has turned major and she does not wish to prosecute the case further. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the 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 him, he does not deserves any leniency. He submits that though there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix, firstly made her to elope with him and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her 4 wishes, as a result of which, she also became pregnant, but even if it is presumed that nothing happened against her wishes, such fact may not be of much relevance because admittedly at the time of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor, however learned Additional Advocate General fairly admits factum with regard to delivery of child as well as report of FSL, wherein petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have been found to be biological parents of the child. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix had been meeting the bail petitioner for the last four years prior to lodging of FIR. Since May 2025, she had been residing in the house of the bail petitioner as his wife. Though there is no document/evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have solemnized marriage, but victim-prosecutrix, who has come present in person along with her child, has categorically stated before this court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure had been living in the company of the bail petitioner since May 2025 and nothing wrong happened against her wishes. Learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix sexually assaulted her 5 against her wishes. True it is that at the time of commission of offence victim-prosecutrix was minor, but now entire scenario has been changed with the delivery of a child, who has been born out of the wedlock of the victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS before the learned Judicial Magistrate ( available at page 20 of the paper book), victim-prosecutrix has categorically stated that her marriage was solemnized with bail petitioner of her own will and at no point of time, any pressure was exerted upon her. 8. No doubt, bail petitioner is accused of commission of heinous crime having adverse impact on society, but since victim-prosecutrix and petitioner have already solemnized marriage, which could be termed as void, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that victim-prosecutrix has delivered one child, it may not be in the interest of victim-prosecutrix as well as her child to let the bail petitioner incarcerate the petitioner in jail because in the situation, ultimate sufferer would be victim-prosecutrix, who would otherwise be left alone to raise her minor child. 9. Victim-prosecutrix, who has come present along with her mother-in-law, while fairly acknowledging factum of her marriage with the bail petitioner stated on oath before this Court that she had joined the company of bail petitioner of her own volition and without any external 6 pressure. She stated that FIR is result of misunderstanding because same was not lodged by her or her family members, rather matter came to be reported to police by Nahan Hospital, where she along with bail petitioner and other family members had come for delivery. She stated that since she and bail petitioner had solemnized marriage in May 2025 and one child has also been born out of the said wedlock, 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 10. 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 7 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.” 11. In the case at hand, victim-prosecutrix has recently attained majority and her husband, who is father of the child born from the victim- prosecutrix, is in custody and his continuous detention besides disrupting the family of victim-prosecutrix may also further cause trauma for their child. Since charge sheet already stands filed and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, otherwise there appears to be no justification for continuous incarceration of the bail petitioner, especially in view of the statement made by the victim-prosecutrix as has been recorded herein above. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case noticed herein above, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised at the behest of the respondent-State that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice and cause harm to the victim- prosecutrix, who is yet to depose before the learned trial Court. Once victim-prosecutrix has candidly admitted factum of her having solemnized 8 marriage with the bail petitioner and out of their wedlock, one child has also been born, case of the prosecution is bound to fail. 12. 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 petitioner indefinitely during trial. 13. 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. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “ The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more 9 than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact 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 former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 15. 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 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 10 prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 16. 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. 17. 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; 11 (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. 18. 18. 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, the 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.50,000/- with one local surety 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; (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. 19. 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. 12 20. 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. 21. The bail 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. May 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge