Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 19.01.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 January, 2026
2026:HHC:3314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.2529 of 2025
Reserved on: 19.01.2026
.
Date of Decision: 23.01.2026
Devi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
rt
For the Petitioner : Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Divakar Dev Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.18/25 dated 06.04.2025, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2025. He was falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The Police have completed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS2026:HHC:3314 2 the investigation, and the petitioner is not required for interrogation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, .
and the further detention of the petitioner is not justified. The matter was listed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, on 24.11.2025 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No of fruitful purpose would be served by retaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions rt that the Court may impose; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant and her husband used to leave the victim with their neighbour while going to their work. She left the victim with her neighbour on 05.04.2025. The victim revealed on 06.04.2025 that the petitioner used to digitally penetrate her. The informant went to her neighbour's house and found the petitioner missing. She reported the matter to the Police. The Police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.
The victim was born on 27.03.2022 and was aged 3 years and 10 days on the date of the incident. The victim was medically examined. The Police arrested the petitioner. The samples were ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS 2026:HHC:3314 3 sent to the SFSL, Junga, but they were found to be negative for the presence of seminal stains or blood, and no DNA analysis .
was conducted. The charge-sheet was filed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, on 09.05.2025. The charges were framed on 11.09.2025.
The matter was listed before the Court for recording the of statements of prosecution witnesses on 24.11.2025. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No.4/87 and FIR No.39/92.
rt Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Divakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the informant has changed her version during the investigation. The report of analysis does not connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime, and no injuries were found during the medical examination of the victim, which falsifies the prosecution's version that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS2026:HHC:3314 4
6. Mr Divakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner .
is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The victim had specifically named him, and this statement has to be, prima facie, accepted as correct. The petitioner would intimidate the victim and informant, if released on bail. Therefore, he prayed of that the present petition be dismissed.
7. rt I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -
(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elabo-
rating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be consid- ered while granting bail, which are extracted as under:
(SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) "7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:3314 5
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant ju- risdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being.
.
[Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England"
(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 -- Mod- ern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfer- ing with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise pol- luting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but of rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard rt to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an ex- ercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be ex- tracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary man- ner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in sup- port thereof, the severity of the punishment which con- viction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable appre- hension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other consid- erations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the pur-
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS2026:HHC:3314 6 poses of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant .
of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecu- tion will be able to produce prima facie evidence in sup- port of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising of discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same ju- diciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) rt "3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An or- der for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sus- tained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail --
the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that al- though it is established that a court considering a bail ap- plication cannot undertake a detailed examination of evi- dence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS2026:HHC:3314 7
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the .
said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order grant- ing bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, inter-
of fere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally in- cumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with rt the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reason-
able 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." (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS 2026:HHC:3314 8 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and ca- sual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine .
Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para
35) "35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while of considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, rt frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While con- sidering an application for the grant of bail, a prima fa- cie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the na-
ture of punishment that would follow a conviction vis- à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused." (em-
phasis supplied)
9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The Police recorded the victim's statement in which she specifically stated that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her. Prima facie, her statement shows the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime.
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS2026:HHC:3314 9
11. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there are variations in the informant's .
statement, which makes the prosecution's case suspect. This submission will not help the petitioner. The informant was not an eye-witness and she narrated what was told to her by the victim. Any variation in her statement will not falsify the of statement of the victim, who is the best witness in the present case. Therefore, the variations are not sufficient to grant bail to rt the petitioner.
12. The victim's statement is corroborated by the statement of the chemist, from whom the medicine was purchased by the informant; thus, prima facie, the prosecution's version that the petitioner had digitally penetrated the victim has to be accepted as correct.
13. It was submitted that the victim's version is not corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence, no injuries were detected on the victim's person, and no semen was found in the samples analysed. It is premature to say anything about this submission at this stage. Sufficient it so say that the Court has to accept the informant's testimony as correct unless ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS 2026:HHC:3314 10 rebutted by any material on record, and her testimony cannot be doubted because of the absence of injuries on her person 2. Thus, .
the prosecution's case cannot be doubted because the medical evidence or the report of SFSL does not corroborate the victim's testimony.
14. The petitioner is aged 61 years, as per the petition, of and the victim is aged three years. The difference in the ages of rt the petitioner and the victim and the fact that the informant had left the victim in the house of the petitioner in trust to take care of her, which trust was breached, would make the offence heinous, disentitling the petitioner from the concession of bail.
15. No other point was urged.
16. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.
17. The observations made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23 January, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi) 2 State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, (2005) 8 SCC 122 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 20:42:30 :::CIS