Mere transportation of minor victim and co-accused to offence site does not prove abetment under POCSO Section 17 without evidence of instigation, conspiracy or aiding commission; bail granted post-challan on presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely Sumit, who is behind bars since 21.07.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.117 of 2025, dated 20.07.2025, under Sections 65 (1), 137 (2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘’) and Section 6 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ACT, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’), registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Rajesh Kumar has come present with record. Investigating Officer states that in terms of order dated 28.01.2026, victim-prosecutrix was apprised with regard to pendency of the present petition, but she has stated that she has settled the matter with the present bail-petitioner.

3. Close scrutiny of status report as well as record made available to this Court reveals that on 20.07.2025, complainant, namely ABC, lodged a complaint at PS Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that her minor daughter (name withheld to protect her identity) had gone missing. She alleged hat at 08:00 p.m., her daughter told her that she was going towards shop, but when she did not return within half an hour, she went towards shop and found that her daughter had gone towards the park. She alleged that despite her best efforts, she was unable to find out the whereabouts of her daughter. She alleged that while she had come to the Police Station to lodge the missing report of her daughter, she received a telephonic call from telephone No.97364-89948 and person namely Ajmil i.e. co-accused informed her that he had dropped her daughter near her house. She alleged that her daughter, who had returned home, disclosed to her that co-accused namely Ajmil along with one person namely Sumit i.e. bail-petitioner, who happens to be uncle of the co-accused Ajmil, had taken her to Chimbalhar park, from where she was taken to a room at Bheer. She alleged that allegedly person namely Ajmil sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against person involved in the crime. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and the co-accused Ajmil. Since co-accused Ajmil, who allegedly sexually assaulted victim-prosecutrix against her wishes, already stands enlarged on bail being juvenile, whereas bail-petitioner, who had accompanied the aforesaid co-accused to the place of incident, is behind bars since 21.07.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Mr. Panwar, states that bail-petitioner abetted the crime by taking victim-prosecutrix as well as co-accused Ajmil on his scooty. He further submitted that while victim-prosecutrix was being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the co-accused Ajmil, bail-petitioner remained mute spectator. He submitted that sin