IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2781 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.1.2026 Date of Decision: 23.1.2026.

Ramesh Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 7 of 2025, dated 9.4.2025, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64 and 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

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

2. It has been asserted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The victim has not made any statement against the petitioner. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution’s case. Petitioner’s family is suffering because of his continued detention. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitiuoner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by a filing of a status report asserting that the petitioner used to call the victim to his home and rape her. The victim had a stomachache on 8.4.2025 and she was taken to the hospital, where it was found that she was pregnant. She delivered a child in the hospital. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The victim’s school record mentions her date of birth as 14.6.2007. The victim was a minor on the date of the incident. As per the report of the DNA analysis, the victim was found to be the biological mother, and the petitioner was found to be the biological father of the baby. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The police filed the charge sheet on 15.7.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 8.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Bhupinder SinHgh Ahuja, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted thatr the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim made a statement under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) exonerating the petitioner. There is no material at this stage to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the DNA analysis mentions the petitioner as the biological father of the baby, which prima facie shows that the petitioner had raped the victim. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. The parameters for granting bail Hwere 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. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaboroating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge