Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shashi Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 82 of 2026
Decided On : 02-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Addl. A.G.

Inordinate delay in POCSO trial constitutes material change for successive bail application, overriding offence gravity; speedy trial right under Article 21 mandates release from prolonged undertrial detention.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 75 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 12, 35 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail in sexual assault on minor - Successive bail application after earlier rejection - Maintainable only on material change in circumstances - Inordinate delay in recording evidence and concluding trial despite statutory timelines for expedition constitutes such change - Right to speedy trial fundamental aspect of life and liberty - Prolonged undertrial detention without prospect of early conclusion violates Article 21 - Seriousness of offence no bar to bail if state lacks wherewithal for speedy trial - Bail granted subject to stringent conditions. (Paras 8, 13-27)

(B) Successive bail applications - Court must consider grounds of earlier rejection and record specific fresh reasons for grant - Judicial discipline requires restraint absent substantial change. (Paras 8-12)

(C) Special statutes imposing stringent bail conditions - Premised on expeditious trials - Delay defeats purpose; constitutional right to speedy trial prevails. (Paras 17, 21-26)

Facts of the case:
Accused of sexually assaulting 14-year-old victim by touching stomach and breasts in bathroom. FIR registered, arrested same day. Charge sheet filed after investigation. Earlier bail petition dismissed. Trial not commenced; evidence recording listed repeatedly but adjourned due to presiding officer's absence, now scheduled much later violating statutory timelines.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed. Petitioner directed to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety, subject to conditions prohibiting witness intimidation, mandating trial attendance, restricting movement without intimation, surrendering passport if any, and maintaining contact details for summons.

Issues: Whether inordinate trial delay constitutes material change for successive bail in serious child sexual offence case; whether apprehension of witness influence or offence gravity outweighs right to liberty pending delayed trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to adhere to statutory timelines for child victim evidence and trial completion, coupled with judicial delays, infringes accused's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21; entitles grant of bail in successive application as state cannot oppose on offence seriousness absent trial expedition capability; apprehension of influence mitigated by conditions.

Result: Bail petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition in pocso sexual assault fir (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue over trial delay post-arrest (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. successive bail requires material change in circumstances (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. pocso timelines violated by court delays (Para 14 , 16)
5. speedy trial is fundamental right under article 21 (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. no victim apprehension; impose bail conditions (Para 28)
7. bail granted due to speedy trial violation (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 68 of 2025, dated 02.03.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2025. He has nothing to do with the commission of the offences. He is the sole bread earner of the family. The charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the trial has not commenced as yet. No fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner. The petitioner is a respectable person in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before the Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1446 of 2025 and was dismissed on 07.07.2025. No witness has been examined after the dismissal of the bail petition. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim’s father made a complaint to the police, stating that the victim, aged 14 years, was going to the bathroom on 02.03.2025 at 4:00 p.m. The petitioner called her and took her to the bathroom, where he sexually assaulted her by touching her stomach and breasts. The victim’s brother saw her and saved her from the petitioner. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner on 02.03.2025. The victim was born on 22.01.2013. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and the matter is listed on 23.03.2026 for the prosecution’s evidence. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to commence the evidence despite a lapse of about one year from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. The matter is listed for recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses on 23.03.2026, and there is no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest; hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the witnesses could not be examined due to the absence of the Presiding Officer on the date fixed. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 13.10.2025 to 17.10.2025, however, the statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be recorded as the Presiding Officer was on leave during the aforesaid period. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier also filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1446 of 2025 and was dismissed on 07.07.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail appli