Bail should not be denied solely based on the gravity of the offence, considering the principle of presumed innocence and the particular circumstances of the case.

JUDGNENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner, namely Ajit Singh, who is behind the bars since 02.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNS S , 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.2/2026, dated 02.01.2026, under Sections 64 of and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur.

2. In terms of order dated 20.03.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Parmod Kumar, Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 01.01.2026, Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, received an e- mail with regard to marriage of victim-prosecutrix with present bail petitioner. Though credentials of complainant could not be established, but yet having taken note of details given in the complaint, Police recorded the statement of father of the victim- prosecutrix (name withheld), who alleged that his eldest daughter, who had been studying in 10+2, had been talking to bail petitioner for quite long. He alleged that on 08.12.2025, his wife apprised him that her daughter, i.e. victim-prosecutrix, is pregnant and she, on inquiry, disclosed that for quite some time, she has physical relationship with the bail petitioner. He alleged that in the evening of 08.12.2025, his daughter, i.e. victim- prosecutrix, of her own volition, left her house and started living at the house of bail petitioner. He alleged that one child has born out of the wedlock of victim-prosecutrix as well as bail petitioner. Since father of the victim-prosecutrix alleged that bail petitioner, taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of his daughter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars.

4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

5. Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated, because he and victim-prosecutrix, who at the time of alleged incident was minor, had been meeting and talking to each other for quite long and they had also solemnised marriage in the month of December, 2025. Mr. Chandel further argued that on 10.12.2025, one female child has born out of the wedlock of bail petitioner and victim-prosecutrix and victim-prosecutrix in her statement given to Judicial Magistrate as well as Special Magistrate has already clarified that she of her own volition has solemnised marriage with bail petitioner and she wants to live with bail petitioner and as such, he may be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that though victim-prosecutrix has expressed her desire to live with the family of bail petitioner, who is also eager to take her along, but yet she along with her minor child has been sent to Bal Ashram. Lastly, Mr. Chandel submitted that since Challan already stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer made in the instant petition for grant of bail deserves to be allowed.

6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of completion of investigation, 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 the him, he does not deserve any leniency. He stated that there is overw