The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty dictate that pre-trial detention should not be punitive and bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Bail petitioner namely Suneel Kumar, who is behind bars since 5.1.2026, 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 5.1.2026, registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 6 4 (2) 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. In terms of order dated 17.3.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and SI Pradeep Kumar, PS Chowari, has come present with record.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 15.1.2026, police received information from Civil Hospital Chowari, District Chamba, to the effect that one minor girl has been brought for delivery of a child. Police after having reached the hospital found victim-prosecutrix to be minor. Since persons accompanying her were unable to produce any document with regard to her majority as well as marriage, police lodged FIR and arrested the bail petitioner, who otherwise claimed himself to be husband of victim-prosecutrix. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at the time of registration of FIR, victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner had already solemnized marriage and they both had come to the hospital for delivery of a child. He stated that at the time of lodging of FIR, age of the victim-prosecutrix was less than seventeen years, but fact remains that she had already solemnized marriage with the bail petitioner and since her marriage had been residing with the family of the bail petitioner. He submitted that petitioner can be said to have committed heinous crime punishable under the POCSO Act, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that victim-prosecutrix has already given birth to a child and it would be difficult for her to raise minor child in the absence of her husband. He stated that once factum of marriage inter-se petitioner and victim-prosecutrix stands established and victim-prosecutrix is living happy married life, this court may enlarge the bail petitioner on bail.

5. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, stated 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. Mr. Chauhan, submitted that though victim-prosecutrix has claimed to have solemnized marriage with the bail petitioner of her own volition, but having regard to her age, consent, if any, of her is immaterial as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. However, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly admitted that in the event of stand, as has been taken by the victim-prosecutrix before this court, chances of conviction of the bail petitioner are very remote and bleak.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on rec