The Court cannot conduct a 'mini-trial' at the bail stage by evaluating witness hostility, contradictions in statements, or the credibility of evidence, as these tasks fall exclusively within the domain of the trial Court.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 03 of 2025, dated 20.01.2025, registered at Women Police Station Nahan District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 78, and 137(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’) and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. He is a permanent resident of district Sirmour and has roots in the society. He is a teenager with no criminal history. He would be exposed to hardcore criminals in jail in case of denial of bail to him. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 16.04.2026. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner 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 was studying in class 10th. The petitioner was stalking her. He was advised by the victim’s parents not to stalk her but he did not agree. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the FIR. The victim revealed that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with her. The victim was medically examined, and the Medical Officer confirmed that the victim had maintained sexual relations. The victim was born on 11.07.2009 and was aged 15 years, 2 months and 17 days on the date of the incident. The police seized the mobile phones and obtained the call details record. The police found that the petitioner had called the victim 150 times between 14.11.2024 to 22.11.2024 from the mobile No. 8xxxxx0863 and 224 times between 23.11.2024 to 12.01.25 from the Mobile No. 9xxxxx8257. The samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), but they tested negative for the presence of semen, and no DNA profiling was carried out. All the SIMs were found to be registered in the petitioner’s name. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.

5. Mr Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual. The victim’s parents did not approve of the relationship and they filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The victim has also not supported the prosecution's version. The continued detention of the petitioner is not justified. Hence, 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 victim was a minor and incapable of giving consent. The petitioner had taken advantage of the victim's minority. The offence is heinous in nature. 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 were con