Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ranvir Singh @ Sanju - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 2454 of 2025
Decided On : 18-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 64, 65(1), 78, 332(c), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 126(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 12 - Bail application in case involving allegations of stalking, criminal intimidation and rape of minor - Petitioner absconded post-FIR, necessitating non-bailable warrants and proclamation - Charge-sheet filed, trial commenced with statements of eight witnesses recorded within six months - No undue delay in trial - Bail denied owing to heinous nature of offence, prima facie acceptance of victim's statement, previous conduct indicating risk of absconding and inability to secure presence during trial. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 18)

(B) Grant of bail - Principles - Nature of accusation, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, risk of fleeing justice or tampering with witnesses, character and antecedents of accused, progress of trial - Normal rule is bail, not jail, except where circumstances suggest thwarting course of justice - Courts not to appreciate evidence or contradictions at bail stage post-trial commencement. (Paras 8-10, 15-17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail asserting false implication, completion of investigation, charge-sheet filing and trial not concluding within one year. Prosecution status report detailed victim's complaint of harassment, threats to abduct and kill, and rape disclosure; petitioner absconded until arrest.

Findings of Court:
Petition fails; petitioner not entitled to bail; observations confined to bail disposal, no bearing on merits.

Issues: Whether bail grantable considering heinous allegations against minor, absconding history, discrepancy in victim identification, and alleged trial delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie victim's rape allegation accepted; heinous offence precludes bail; prior absconding shows presence not securable; no evidence appreciation or credibility testing via discrepancies post-trial start; eight witnesses examined in six months negates delay claim.

Result: Present petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition in pocso rape case post-charge-sheet (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court considers parties' bail contentions (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. bail principles: offence nature, flight risk, tampering (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. prima facie rape allegation heinous, bars bail (Para 11)
5. absconding history risks trial non-appearance (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. bail stage avoids evidence credibility assessment (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. no undue pocso trial delay established (Para 18)
8. bail denied; observations limited to petition (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 98 of 2024, dated 08.09.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64 , 65(1), 78, 332 (c), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (), 2023 and Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner had been stalking the victim. He criminally intimidated her by threatening to abduct her. He raped her in January 2024. These allegations are false, and the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of crime. The investigation is complete. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter is listed for prosecution’s evidence. The Trial has not concluded within one year as required under the POCSO Act. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Kangra, H.P. and there is no chance of his absconding. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which 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 informant made a complaint to the police, stating that the petitioner was harassing the victim. The petitioner stopped the victim on the way to her school on 06.09.2024 and threatened to abduct and kill her. The petitioner visited the victim’s house on 07.09.2024 and threatened the victim. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police recorded the statement of the victim on 09.09.2024, and she disclosed that the petitioner had raped her. The petitioner had absconded, and open non-bailable warrants of arrest were obtained from the Court on 17.10.2024 for his arrest. A proclamation was issued by the Court returnable for 03.04.2025. The police arrested the petitioner on 24.03.2025 and filed the charge sheet. Statements of eight witnesses have been recorded. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 16.10.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had absconded and was apprehended after much efforts. He would again abscond in case of his release on bail. 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. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. InGudikantiNarasimhuluv