IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No. 2482 of 2023 P Reserved on: 28.11.2023 Date of Decision: 06^th December, 2023 Mohammad Bilal ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

Rakhesh Kainthla, Judge g The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R.No. 90/21, dated 16.09.2021, was registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Nahan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363,366&376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The petitioner and victim were known to each other. They married each other. The victim also endorsed this fact in her statement Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The victim remained with the petitioner for about 18 months. The parents of the victim objected to the friendship between the victim and the petitioner. The F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner at their instance. The petitioner has been behind the bars for abou t 1 year and till date no witness has been examined. Thoe petitioner would join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court upon him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. CThe petition was opposed by filing a status report. It was asserted that the father of the victim made a complaint that the victim was found missing on the intervening night of 15.09.2021/16.09.2021. The age of the victim was 13 years. The police conducted the investigation. The victim and the petitioner were recovered at Sikhri Palwal (Haryana). The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As per the birth certificate of the victim, she was born on 11.01.2008 and was aged 13 years 8 months and 5 days at the time incident. The police searched for the marriage record but could not find any record of the marriage. Since the victim was a minor; therefore, an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was added. As per the report of the analysis,the DNA of the victim was found on the Gamcha and used condoms. The DNA of the petitioner matched with the DNA picked from the underwear of the victim. As per the Medical Officer, there was nothing to s uggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. Thoe challan has been prepared and now the matter is listed for Consideration of Charge. On 26.12.2023. F.I.R No. 77 of 2018 has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner aCnd Mr. Jitneder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had married the victim and was residing with her as her husband. The victim initially refused to undergo a medical examination. She made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had disclosed her age as 21 years at the time of marriage. Therefore, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no proof of marriage. The victim was a minor and incapable of consenting. Her statement that she was residing with the petitioner on her own will not help the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. o

6. I have given consid erable thought to the rival submissions 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 Bhagwan Singh v. D