Refusal of a victim to undergo medico-legal examination in sexual offense cases can lead to a negative inference regarding the credibility of the prosecution's version, supporting the grant of bail when the investigation is complete and pre-trial punishment is to be avoided.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Virender Singh, Judge

Applicant – Munish Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.106 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered under Sections 65(1), 77, 79, 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), Section 6 7 , 67B of the Information and Technology Act , (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act’) and Section 6 and 13 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’), with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. According to him, he has no concern whatsoever with the offences, for which, he has been named as accused.

3. It is the further case of the applicant that according to the prosecution case, date of birth of the child victim is 25.10.2008, however, in order to substantiate the said fact, no evidence has been collected by the prosecution, in this case. Hence, according to the applicant, date of birth of the child victim, as 25.10.2008, has not been proved.

4. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and the applicant is in judicial custody.

5. All these facts, have been pleaded to show that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the police.

6. The applicant has filed similar application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, District Solan, however, his application was dismissed on 15.11.2025.

7. Apart from the above, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

9. The complainant, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2, has put appearance along with the child victim on 11.12.2025 and on her request, Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate has been appointed as legal aid counsel. However, learned legal aid counsel, under instructions, has submitted that respondent No.2, does not want to file any objections.

10. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 13.06.2025, respondent No.2, moved a complaint to the police, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint. She has stated that when the child victim came in contact with accused Munish Kumar, at that time, her age was less than 18 years.

10.1. The complainant has also warned the child victim not to talk with him, but, the accused created an instagram account and made obscene photographs and videos viral through the said fake ID.

10.2. Thereafter, those obscene photographs were also forwarded to the son of the complainant through instagram. Not only this, those obscene photographs and videos were also