1. By way of present petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No.81 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’), registered against him at Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, H.P.

2. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed the bail application before the learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P. However, the said bail application having been registered as Bail Application No.235 of 2025 titled, Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. was dismissed on 15.12.2025. While rejecting the bail application, the grounds which had weighed with the learned Special Judge were that the offence committed is heinous and further the victim was minor. The charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner and further statements of the victim and other material witnesses are yet to be recorded.

3. As per prosecution story, the victim had visited the Swasth Nari Shashakt Pariwar Camp on 17.09.2025 at Civil Hospital, Kihar, where one Smt. Meera Devi, who is working as Asha worker at Sub Centre, Kihar, on her medical check-up, found that she is pregnant. She reported the matter on Child Helpline Number on 18.09.2025. On the basis of which, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner.

4. During investigation, it was found that the victim was 17 years old as per her Aadhar Card. She, however, stated that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner, who made her pregnant.

5. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 before the learned JMFC, Chamba. As per the birth certificate of the victim, her date of birth was found to be 20.05.2008. It was also transpired during investigation that the victim and the petitioner were having love affair, due to which, the victim started living with the petitioner as his wife and maintained physical relations. The petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2025 and at present is in judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted the challan before the Court.

6. The petitioner averred in the petition that the FIR has been registered on the basis of false and unsubstantial facts. He further submitted that there are no allegations leveled against him about any wrongful act or forcible intercourse. He submitted that he has no previous criminal history and thus prayed for grant of regular bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General representing respondents No.1 and 2-State as well as learned counsel representing the victim. I have also perused the status report.

8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is in custody since long. Further, the present case does not fall within the spirit of POCSO Act, but exposes a harsh social reality, where minor married couples are exposed to POCSO because of their lack of knowledge. He further argued that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail.

9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General representing respondents No.1 and 2-State stated that since the crime having been committed by the petitioner is heinous and further the victim being minor, no leniency can be shown to release the petitioner on bail.

10. The learned counsel representing respondent No.3-victim did not oppose the bail petition.

11. Before deciding the present bail application, the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are being referred.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Pinki vs. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 has laid down the parameters. The relevant observations in the judgment are reproduced hereunder:-

                   (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 elaborating 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 considered 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.

                   8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

                   9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but 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 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 exercise 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 extracted 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 manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction 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 apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes 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 prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support 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., emphasized that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. 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) “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 order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. 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 the placement of the accused in 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 although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence 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.

                   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 granting 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, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with 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 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.” (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 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three- Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual 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 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, 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 considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie 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 nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied).”

13. A perusal of the status report reveals that the victim and the petitioner were in love with each other and they want to get married. The victim at her own had come to the house of the petitioner in the month of December, 2024 and both of them had started living as husband and wife. The matter was reported to the police by Smt.Meera Devi, who is working as Asha Worker. It has come during investigation that the victim had married with the petitioner.

14. This Court in Manoj Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:17169 had quashed the FIR under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in a case, where the couple was married to each other.

15. Admittedly, in the present case, the victim is 17 years of age as per birth certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kihar. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.09.2025. His continuous detention is not going to serve any purpose.

16. As mentioned above, the charge-sheet has already been filed and thus the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not justified. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, the petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

                   i) The petitioner shall not temper with the prosecution evidence or dissuade any of the prosecution witnesses to disclose the truth;

                   ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.However, in case of extreme exigencies, the learned trial Court may exempt his personal appearance on a particular date.

                   iii) The petitioner shall not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

                   iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

                   v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and the learned trial Court by FASTER.

19. Any observations made hereinabove are only regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.