In cases of serious offences like penetrative sexual assault on a minor, where DNA evidence exists and the potential punishment is severe (life imprisonment), the grant of bail is generally denied as the nature of the charge and evidence are vital factors.

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

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 100 of 2025, dated 15.05.2025, registered in Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 96 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 6 and 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner and his sister (co-accused) had kidnapped the victim and taken her to Jallandhar on 14.05.2025. The petitioHner took the victim to his house and committed the penetrative sexual assault on her twice. The victim was aged 17 oyears at the time of the incident. The victim’s father reporte d the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR and recovered the victim from the petitioner’s house. The report of the RFSL revealed that the petitioner’s DNA was found on the clothes and biological sample of the victim. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose upon him; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the victim was aged 17 years. She left her home on 14.05.2025 at about 7.30 A.M. She did not return, and her phone was found switched off. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police subsequently found that the victim was at Jallandhar. The police recovered the victim from the petitioner’s house oHn 16.05.2025. The victim revealed that the petitioner and his sister took her in a bus to Jallandhar on 14.05.2025. The peotitioner resided with the victim at Jallandhar. The petitioner had sexually penetrated her twice. The victim was found to be born on 09.05.2025 and was aged 17 years on the date of the incident. The samples were collected. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 11.07.2025. The matter was listed on 11.02.2026 for proper order. The statements of six witnesses are yet to be recorded. Hence, the status report.

I have heard M/s Vijender Katoch and Kapil Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the victim had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to complete the trial within a reasonable time, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioneHr would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose upon him. Hence, he prayed that the present petiotion be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim was a minor and she could not have consented to the sexual intercourse. Her version was duly corroborated by the report of RFSL, in which the petitioner’s DNA was found on the victim’s clothes and her biological samples. The petitioner has not provided any explanation for the presence of his DNA. The statements of six witnesses have been recorded, and there is no delay in the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC