Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.
Rajinder Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P and others - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.3003 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Aditya Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr.Khem Raj, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, Mr.K.K. Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.Panku Chaudhary, Advocate

Bail granted in POCSO case of consensual relations and pregnancy between minor victim and accused living as spouses, post-investigation, balancing bail principles with case's social context of adolescent unions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 64 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Bail in case of minor victim’s pregnancy from consensual physical relations with accused in love affair, living as spouses - Despite lower court dismissal citing heinous offence and minor victim, regular bail granted post-investigation and challan filing, considering no prior criminal history, no force alleged, parties’ mutual intent to marry, and prolonged custody serving no purpose - Broad principles for bail reiterated: nature of charge/evidence, punishment severity, justice obstruction risk, antecedents, witness tampering apprehension, judicious discretion required (Paras 12-13).

(B) Bail - Guiding principles - Courts must consider prima facie case, accusation gravity, conviction punishment, absconding risk, accused character/standing, repetition likelihood, witness influence danger, justice thwarting - Mechanical orders invalid; reasoned prima facie assessment mandatory, balancing personal liberty with societal protection (Paras 12(i)-62).

Facts of the case:
Victim, aged 17 per birth certificate, found pregnant at medical camp; reported via helpline leading to FIR; admitted love affair with accused, solemnized marriage, started living together as spouses from December prior; accused arrested, in judicial custody; investigation complete, challan filed; lower court rejected bail citing offence heinousness and minor status.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner released on bail furnishing personal bond Rs.50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions against evidence tampering, trial attendance, address reporting, passport surrender, contact furnishing.

Issues: Whether regular bail grantable in POCSO offence despite minor victim and heinous nature, given consensual relations, marriage intent, investigation closure; application of Supreme Court bail principles.

Ratio Decidendi: In consensual love affairs with minors living as married couples exposing harsh social reality under POCSO, bail judicious post-challan as custody purposeless; no prima facie force/wrongful act; aligns prior quashing precedent; liberty paramount absent tampering/absconding risks (Paras 8,13-16). Result : Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition in pocso case post-fir and investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties contend on bail citing consent and heinousness (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. supreme court bail principles: nature, evidence, antecedents (Para 11 , 12)
4. love marriage context mitigates custody need (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. bail granted with conditions and violation warnings (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge

By way of present petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No.81 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 under Section 6 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’), registered against him at Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, H.P.

2. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed the bail application before the learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P. However, the said bail application having been registered as Bail Application No.235 of 2025 titled, Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. was dismissed on 15.12.2025. While rejecting the bail application, the grounds which had weighed with the learned Special Judge were that the offence committed is heinous and further the victim was minor. The charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner and further statements of the victim and other material witnesses are yet to be recorded.

3. As per prosecution story, the victim had visited the Swasth Nari Shashakt Pariwar Camp on 17.09.2025 at Civil Hospital, Kihar, where one Smt. Meera Devi, who is working as Asha worker at Sub Centre, Kihar, on her medical check-up, found that she is pregnant. She reported the matter on Child Helpline Number on 18.09.2025. On the basis of which, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner.

4. During investigation, it was found that the victim was 17 years old as per her Aadhar Card. She, however, stated that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner, who made her pregnant.

5. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 before the learned JMFC, Chamba. As per the birth certificate of the victim, her date of birth was found to be 20.05.2008. It was also transpired during investigation that the victim and the petitioner were having love affair, due to which, the victim started living with the petitioner as his wife and maintained physical relations. The petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2025 and at present is in judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted the challan before the Court.

6. The petitioner averred in the petition that the FIR has been registered on the basis of false and unsubstantial facts. He further submitted that there are no allegations leveled against him about any wrongful act or forcible intercourse. He submitted that he has no previous criminal history and thus prayed for grant of regular bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General representing respondents No.1 and 2-State as well as learned counsel representing the victim. I have also perused the status report.

8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is in custody since long. Further, the present case does not fall within the spirit of POCSO Act, but exposes a harsh social reality, where minor married couples are exposed to POCSO because of their lack of knowledge. He further argued that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail.

9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General representing respondents No.1 and 2-State stated that since the crime having been committed by the petitioner is heinous and further the victim being minor, no leniency can be shown to release the petitioner on bail.

10. The learned counsel representing respondent No.3-victim d