IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.492 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Sumit @ Golu ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

…....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.

CAnish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

g Bail petitioner namely Sumit @ Golu, who is behind bars since

29.5.2025, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 93 of 2025 dated 28.5.2025, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 137 (2), 64 (1) and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”) and Section 6 of the P.rotection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “Act”).

2. In terms of order dated 1.4.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and Victim-prosecutrix has come present along with parents of the bail petitioner.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 28.5.2025, complainant along wi th her husband came to afore Police Station for lodging complainrt against the bail petitioner. She alleged that her daughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix, who is 17 years old, has been sexually assaulted by the boail petitioner against her wishes. She alleged that firstly, bail petitionCer made her daughter elope with him and thereafter, now he is refusing to take her along. Police after having taken note of the afore comhplaint got victim-prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Medical College, Nahan, wherein it came to be transpired that victim-prosecutrix is pregnant. Victim-prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, specifically stated that bail petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes. In the afore background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him coupled with the fact that victim-prosecutrix after deliver.y has been living with her in-laws i.e. parents of the bail petitioner, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovere d from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alrleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. Mr. Kahol, submits that since at the time of the commission of offoence, victim-prosecutrix was 17 years old, consent, if any, of her, is imCmaterial. He further states that though as per medical evidence adduced on record, bail petitioner is biological father of the child born from theh womb of the victim-prosecutrix and victim-prosecutrix intends to live with the bail petitioner, but having regard to the gravity of the crime allegedly committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency rather needs to be dealt with in accordance with law.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that consent, if any, of victim-prosecutrix, may not be relevant for the reason that at the time of alleged incident, she was minor, but having regard to subsequent development, wher.eby victim- prosecutrix of