Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kishan Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2917 of 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2026.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

In sexual offence bail applications involving minors, DNA evidence excluding accused paternity, combined with prolonged detention, recorded victim testimony, and conditional safeguards against tampering, justifies release despite offence gravity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 6 - Regular bail application - Minor victim pregnant, initially attributed paternity to unknown person, later named petitioner and co-accused for rape and threat - DNA analysis inconsistent with petitioner’s paternity but consistent with co-accused - Petitioner in custody for about two years post-arrest - Trial ongoing with victim’s statement recorded - No apprehension of absconding or witness tampering upon imposition of conditions - Bail granted subject to furnishing bonds and compliance with restrictions. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

(B) Bail - Grant parameters - Nature of charge, evidence quality, punishment severity, justice thwarting risk, accused antecedents, witness influence likelihood, public interest - Discretion to be exercised judiciously with prima facie reasons, not mechanically - Prolonged detention without trial conclusion weighs in favour where material casts doubt on complicity. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case alleging rape of minor and criminal intimidation. Prosecution opposed citing offence gravity and tampering risk. Victim initially silent on perpetrator, later accused petitioner and co-accused. Medical confirmed pregnancy; DNA excluded petitioner as father. Four witnesses including victim examined; charge-sheet filed.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety, subject to conditions prohibiting witness intimidation, ensuring trial attendance, restricting travel, surrendering passport if any, and maintaining contact details.

Issues: Whether bail grant justified despite heinous offence against minor, given DNA exoneration on paternity, delayed trial, recorded testimonies, and local residency indicating low absconding risk.

Ratio Decidendi: Victim’s delayed naming and DNA ruling out petitioner’s paternity render involvement suspect; two years’ custody with key statements recorded minimizes further prejudice; tampering apprehension addressable by conditions; no absconding likelihood as local resident - balancing liberty with case safeguards.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. minor victim pregnant; petitioner accused; dna excludes paternity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner cites dna, delay; state stresses accusation gravity. (Para 6 , 7)
3. bail parameters from sc: evidence, risks, judicious discretion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. dna mismatch, delayed naming, trial delay weaken case. (Para 11 , 12)
5. conditions address tampering; residency reduces absconding risk. (Para 13 , 14)
6. bail granted with strict anti-tampering conditions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 7 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 376 (3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim fell ill in October 2023. Her mother took her to the hospital, where the Doctors informed her that the victim was pregnant. The informant (victim’s mother) repeatedly asked her about the name of the child’s father, but she did not disclose anything. She stated that the child belonged to some unknown Nepali. The victim subsequently revealed that Kishan Bhai (the petitioner) had raped her 3-4 times and threatened to kill her if the incident was narrated to anyone. She also named Chandu @ Chandermani as the person who had done a wrong act with her. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the FIR. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner remained in custody for 1½ years. He is the sole earner of the family. He is a resident of District Kullu, and there is no likelihood of his jumping over the bail. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim became ill in October 2023. The informant took her to the hospital, where the doctor disclosed that the victim was pregnant. The informant asked the victim repeatedly about the name of the child’s father, but she did not disclose anything. The victim subsequently revealed that Kishan Bhai (present petitioner) and Chandermani had raped her. They had threatened to kill her in case the incident was revealed to any person. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. As per the medical examination of the victim, she was found pregnant. The police arrested the petitioner and Chandermani. The victim delivered a child subsequently. As per the report of analysis, the DNA of Kishan Chand was inconsistent with his being the biological father of the baby. The DNA of Chandermani was consistent with his being the biological father of the baby. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. The victim’s statement was recorded on 13.06.2025. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. The victim was informed about the pendency of the bail petition, however, she did not appear before the Court to contest it.

5. I have heard Ms Rajni Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

6. Ms Rajni Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had not named any person as the father of the baby. She subsequently revealed the names of Kishan Chand and Chandermani. The DNA analysis ruled out the petitioner being the biological father of the baby. The petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2024. About 2 years have lapsed, and the trial has not concluded. The victim’s statement has been recorded, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner