IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P.(M) No.2834 of 2025

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Decided on : 01.01.2026

Arvind Kumar ...…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Petitioner: Mr Sangram Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

h General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail in F.I.R No. 83/25, dated 05.05.2025, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 61(2) and 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 (BNS) and Sections 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act (POCSO).

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant made a complaint to the police that her niece,. aged

14 years, was missing since the morning of 04.05.2025. She suspected the involvement of Deepak, PoonHam and Akash. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested Deepak and Poonam. The victim was recovered from a rental accommodation at Ludhiana. She named the petitioner Arvind Kumar as the person who had taken her with him. The police arrested the petitioner. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The victim herself left the home with Poonam and Sandeep @ Deepak and she was not kidnapped. Akash was not arrayed as an accused. The victim did not complain about the sexual assault upon her. The allegations made against the petitioner do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged against him. The co-accused has been released on bail by this Court. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant and victim were residing together. The informant left for her job on 04.05.2025 at 7:00 A.M. She returned on 4:30 P.M., and the victim was found missing. The informant searched for the victim but could not trace her.. She called Poonam and Sandeep, who disclosed that the victim had accompanied them, and they dropped her oHff at Ludhiana Bus Stand. The police arrested Poonam and Sandeep. The police searched for the victim and recovered her on 25.06.2025. She revealed in her statement that Poonam and Sandeep had taken her with them to Ludhiana, from where she had accompanied Arvind Kumar (the present petitioner). The victim’s medical examination was conducted. Her samples were preserved. The petitioner was arrested, and the Medical Officer reported that the peti tioner was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Samples were sent to SFSL, and as per the report, the DNA profile obtained from the pubic hair of the petitioner matched the DNA profile of the victim. A charge sheet was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed for consideration on the charge on 18.12.2025. The petitioner would abscond in case of his release on bail. Hence, the report.

4. I have heard Mr Sangram Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Sangram Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and th.at he was falsely implicated. The victim did not mention in her statement recorded under Section 180 of BHNSS that she was subjected to sexual assault. Therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The co-accused have been released on bail, and the petitioner is enti