IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the heinous nature of the crime and the evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 16 of 2023, dated 25.2.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution’s case, the victim was well acquainted with the petitioner. The petitioner called and raped her in the year 2021. He again called her to his room in September, 2022 and raped her. The victim became pregnant. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The parties were in a relationship for a long period, and they were known to each other. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 26.2.2023, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 23.4.2025. It will take some time to conclude the trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information from the Regional Hospital, Solan, that a pregnant minor girl was brought to the hospital. The police visited the hospital. The victim made a statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. that she was studying in class 10^th. She developed an acquaintance with the petitioner. The petitioner called her to his room in 2021 and raped her. He again raped her in September, 2022. She became pregnant. She suffered from a stomachache and was taken to the hospital, where she was found to be pregnant. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. As per the date of birth certificate of the victim obtained from the school, she was born on 22.8.2007. She delivered a child. The DNA of the petitioner, the victim and the child matched each other. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 23.4.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses.

3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has not completed the trial within one year as mandated under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the heinous offence. The statement of the victim has not been recorded so far, and releasing the petitioner on bail will influence the trial adversely. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

“14. The language of Section 437(3