IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 2475 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Anup Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent- : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, State Additional Advocate General.

Victim in person with Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No.19/2025 dated 22.05.2025, registered at Women Police Station Chamba, Distt. Chamba, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 (a) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

_________________________

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. It has been asserted that the FIR was registered at the instance of the Health Care Workers, Child Help Line, Chamba. The petitioner was arrested on 27.5.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information that the minor victim was married to the petitioner, Anup Kumar, on 22.05.2025. She was pregnant, and action should be taken. The police visited the spot and traced the victim. The petitioner appeared before the police, and the police arrested him. As per the record of Government Primary School, Parautha, the victim was born on 20.04.2008. The victim delivered a child. DNA profile obtained from the child matched the DNA profile of the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 18.07.2025. The matter was listed for admission and denial of the documents on 27.11.2025. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Nimish Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the victim, who appeared in person with Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate before the Court.

5. Mr Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner married the victim. She conceived and was taken to the hospital. She was a minor, and the matter was reported to the police. The petitioner is in custody, and there is no one to look after the victim and her child. The present case does not fall within the spirit of the POCSO Act, but exposes a harsh social reality, where minor married couples are exposed to the POCSO because of their lack of knowledge. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim is a minor, the legislature, in its wisdom, has made sexual intercourse with the minor a punishable offence. The petitioner is the biological father of the child delivered by the victim. Hence, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.

7. The victim, who was present in person, stated that the petitioner had married her, and a child was born to her from the petitioner. She did not oppose the bail petition and had no objection in case the bail is allowed.

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

9. 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. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Hig