IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 2091 of 2025

Reserved on: 18.12.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.

Sahil alias Sahil Tandon ...Petitioner

Versus o

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and

Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

i The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 3 of 2024, dated 11.1.2024, registered at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 6 and 17 of the

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

2. It has been asserted that the police arrested the petitioner on 12.1.2024 in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner was

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

sent to judicial custody. The charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed on 11.6.2024. The petitioner has no concern with the commission of the offence. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of 1½ years. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the peutitioner be released on bail.

3. The opetition is opposed by filing a status report asserting tChat the minor victim was found pregnant, and the matter was reported to the police. The victim revealed that the petitioner, Sahil, used to visit her home. Her sister-in-law would make the victim talk to Sahil. The victim used to sleep in Hthe house of her sister-in-law. She sent the victim to the field where Sahil was present, who raped her. He paid ₹2500/- to the victim, which she paid to her sister-in-law. The petitioner used to visit the village and rape her. She became pregnant. The petitioner threatened to kill the victim in case his name was revealed to any person. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner and the victim’s sister-in-law. The victim delivered a baby, and as per the report of SFSL, the petitioner is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the child. The police filed the charge sheet. The statements of 14 witnesses have been recorded. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-

State.

5. Mr Rakesh Chaudahry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the prosecution evidence despite a lapse of 1½ years from the petitioner’s arrest. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. The petitioner had himself sought adjournments, which led to the delay in the progress of the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. The parameters for graonting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P inki 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. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution hof India in the context of personal liberty