Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision:17.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
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.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
rt
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?
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
complaint against bail petitioner. Victim/prosecutrix, while claiming
herself to be studying in Class-7th, alleged that two months back
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
the victim/prosecutrix for his having indulged in animal fur trade.
He contends that otherwise also, there is litigation interse his family
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the
gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does
rt
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,
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:7850
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,
of
victim/prosecutrix has attempted to render explanation qua the
delay in lodging FIR by stating that since she was under constant
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
statement suggests that when he asked prosecutrix that why she
does not complete her home work, she stated that she is troubled
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
regard to abduction and wrongful confinement of her sister to her
parents. If the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under
rt
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,
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail, especially when he has already suffered for more
rt
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 ongrounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby
lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside alsobecause 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::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:7850and 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 wherethe 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 inof
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
rt
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 therelationship 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 ofa 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::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:7850cases 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 lefthome of her own accord observed that the application deserved
consideration.
This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the
of
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
rt
the use of these Sections without specific instances or relevant
details, among other cases. It is also to be stated though that noamount 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 theadvocate 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 tobe 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::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:7850profession, 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 reformwith 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 toof
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.
rt
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, toconsider 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 ofthose 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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:7850
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.
of
13. In the instant case, besides there being major
contradictions in the statements of the victim/prosecutrix recorded
rt
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.
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty.
15.
rt 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:
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
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.
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation,
punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and
rt
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 andevery 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.
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:7850
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
of
stands accordingly disposed of.
22. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order
rt
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)
::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:31:02 :::CIS
