Cr.MP(M) No.599 of 2025

Date of Decision : 11.12.2025

Yuvraj Kumar

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

……Respondent

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?, IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA No

For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.02/2024 dated 23.01.2024, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

2. Notice of the present bail petition was served upon the minor victim through her father and natural guardian, in terms of order dated 19.08.2025. In pursuance thereto, the victim along-with her mother had appeared on 19.09.2025. Thereafter, despite being aware of the pendency

of the present petition, they have chosen not to appear.

3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the status report.

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

4. Initially, the victim’s mother had filed a complaint qua her daughter having gone missing. In the complaint so filed, complainant suspected foul play. In the same, it had been alleged that the minor victim aged about 15 years had left home on 20.01.2024 on the pretext of attending sewing classes, however, thereafter she never returned. The said complaint led to the filing of the FIR under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping). During investigation, the victim was recovered from a rented accommodation in Gujjar Colony, Noida where the present petitioner had kept her.

5. Statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confirmed that the petitioner repeatedly had physical relations with the minor victim in her room. The medical and forensic evidence collected during investigation corroborated the sexual assault alleged, in the case at hand.

6. FIR, in the case at hand, was registered on 23.01.2024. The present bail petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2024 and is presently in judicial custody. Post investigation, the Challan was filed and charge, in the case at hand, was framed on 15.05.2024. In all, there are 26 witnesses and out of them 6 have been examined. The victim and her mother’s statements have been recorded. The father has been given up. The matter is now listed for recording of 6 more witnesses w.e.f. 19.03.2026 to 21.03.2026. The zimini orders with respect to the proceedings before the Sessions Court have been placed on record. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that despite numerous opportunities having been afforded, the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses for examination before the Court. The zimini orders along-with an application bearing Cr.MP No.3160 of 2025 have been placed on record.

7. Speedy trial is one of the facets of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just” procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the Accused.

8. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693; Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri.) 184 : 2018 SCC onLine SC 478; Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC

321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453

9. The intent of the speedy trial can also be gathered from the statutory provisions of the POCSO Act, specifically Section 35 (2) thereof.

The same reads as