The court held that bail is not granted when serious offenses involving a minor and substantial evidence are present.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 30 of 2023, dated 9.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (POCSO Act), at Women Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. He belongs to a good family, and there is no case pending against him. The allegations levelled by the informant are not corroborated by any scientific evidence. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Kullu, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was studying in class 9^th. She complained of pain in her stomach and nausea. Her mother brought her to the Kullu hospital for her treatment. The Medical OfÏcer advised some tests. He revealed after examining the reports that the victim was pregnant. The victim revealed that the petitioner had raped her one and half month before her statement. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statement of the victim was recorded, in which she revealed that she was being sexually exploited for more than one year. As per the victim’s certificate, she was born on 19.11.2010. The police arrested the petitioner. As per the report of DNA analysis, the petitioner is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the product of conception. The matter was listed for the victim’s statement on 2.4.2025. The statement of one witness has been recorded. The petitioner is residing adjacent to the house of the victim. The petitioner would intimidate the victim in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 2023, and the prosecution has only examined one witness. There is delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the prosecution has examined one witness. The matter was listed for the recording of statements of prosecution witnesses on 2.4.2025. There is no delay in the progress of the trial, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437 (3) and 439(1)(a)