IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. : 2841 of 2025 Reserved on : 02.03.2026 Date of Decision H : 10.3.2026.

Rohit …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate.

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

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 22 of 2024, dated 07.02.2024, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the

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

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

2. It is asserted that the police had arrested the petitioner on 08.02.2024 based on false allegations. The matter is pending before the learned Trial Court ffor about 20 months, and only a few prosecution witnesses have been examined. The matter was listed for recording the statement of the prosecution’s witnesses on 18.12.2025. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 460 of 2024, and was dismissed on 02.07.2024. He had filed an application seeking temporary bail, which was allowed, and the petitioner was released on temporary/interim bail. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and he has roots in the society. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, 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 victim’s mother made a complaint to the police stating therein that the victim had gone to her friend’s house on 05.02.2024; however, she did not return during the night. She (victim) returned on 06.02.2024 at 8:00 A.M. She revealed on enquiry that when she was returning to her home, petitioner Rohit had asked her to board the vehicle. He tol.d her that he would drop her off at her home, but he took her to some other place. One person accompanied the petitioner, and both of them raped her. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police seized the vehicle identified by the victim, and recovered one blanket arnd a pillow. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner’s clothes were seized by the police. As per the date of birth certificate, the victim was born on 12.09.2010. She was aged 13 years, 4 months and 26 days on the date of the incident. The mobile phones of the petitioner and the co-accused were seized. The clothes were preserved by the Medical Officer, and these were sent to SFSL, HJunga. As per the report of the analysis, human semen was detected on the underwear of the victim, the undergarments of petitioner Rohit and co-accused Rajesh Kumar, the T-shirt of co-accused Rajesh Kumar, the blanket recovered from the vehicle and the lower of the victim. The challan has been presented before the Court. The report of analysis was received from FSL, Junga, which shows that the DNA profile obtained from the underwear of the victim matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner. Similarly, the DNA profile obtained from the lower of the victim .matched with the DNA profile obtained from the blood of the co-accused. The DNA profile obtained from the blanket recovered from the vehicle matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner. The supplementary charge sheet was filed before the Court. Twenty witnessesr out of twenty-eight witnesses have been examined. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 19.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addition