Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Saurabh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1391 of 2025
For the Applicant: Mr. Pranshul Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Rohit Sharma
The court established that bail should not serve as pre-trial punishment, ensuring the applicant's rights while imposing conditions to ensure compliance.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application - Applicant seeking bail during trial for offenses under Sections 137 (2), 64, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4, 12, 17 of the POCSO Act - Applicant claims false implication and completion of investigation - Law must protect against pre-trial punishment. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - Applicant must provide personal bond and maintain presence during trial - Certain restrictions imposed to ensure compliance and cooperation. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
Application for bail filed by the applicant who is accused in an ongoing trial related to serious offenses involving a minor; applicant highlights no prior criminal record and his age as a mitigating factor.
Findings of Court:
Evidence suggests the applicant's continued detention is unnecessary and may adversely affect his future; trial outcomes are uncertain.
Issues: Whether applicant's continued detention serves any purpose in proximity to trial and the legitimacy of accusations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and stipulates bail should not be seen as pre-trial punitive measure; conditions of bail provide safeguards to ensure applicant's compliance.
Result: Bail application allowed with conditions imposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail submitted by the accused emphasizing innocence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. investigation completed, no longer needed in custody. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. accused claims false implication and lack of prior offenses. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. decision to grant bail with conditions to ensure appearance. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 5. court considers the impact of continued detention on youth. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. conditions laid out to safeguard trial process and compliance. (Para 19 , 20) |
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Applicant : Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1/State.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person.
Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Saurabh has filed the present application, under Section 4 83 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) seeking his release on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of case FIR No. 70 of 2025, dated 8.4.2025, under Sections 137 (2), 64, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS ’), and Sections 4 , 12 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act”) registered with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, HP.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the case.
3. According to the applicant, the FIR has wrongly been registered at the instance of the child victim. He has pleaded that he has been arrested on 9.4.2025 and from that date, he is in judicial custody.
4. The applicant has further pleaded that the investigation in the present case is complete and the Police has filed charge sheet, under Section 193 of BNSS , before the competent Court of law and the Court has taken cognizance.
5. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the applicant is no longer required by the Police, in this case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, H.P., which was dismissed, on 3.5.2025.
7. The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
8. On all these submissions, Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.
9. When, put to notice, Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 8.4.2025, complainant alongwith her husband appeared before the Police of Police Station, Dharampur, and moved a complaint, disclosing therein that she is resident of place ‘X’ and working in a Home Stay. Her husband is stated to be Driver by profession. They have two daughters and one son. The elder daughter is 16 years old, child victim is about 14 years of age and son is 18 years of age. All their children are stated to be studying in a school.
9.1 On 6.4.2025, all the three children of complainant had gone to market at place ‘Z’ in order to see the fair. In the evening, elder daughter and son returned back, whereas, the child victim telephonically informed that she has gone to her friend’s house and would stay there and return back next day. Thereafter, on 7.4.2025, as usual, the complainant and her husband had gone to their respective duties. Their elder daughter and son returned back. At about 9:00 p.m., when, she did not see the child victim at home, she inquired from her children, upon which, they have disclosed that the child victim had come home at about 9:30 a.m., and after staying there for some time, she had again gone to market. Thereafter she did not return back. Despite repeated calls, on her mobile phone, the child victim did not
