IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 505 of 2026 Reserved on: 21.04.2026 Date of Decision: 27.04.2026.

Ramesh Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 07 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 and 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

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

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the child victim by subjecting her to repeated penetrative sexual assault by calling her to his home in the absence of his family members. The petitioner is 60 years old man and a neighbour of the victim. The incident came to the notice when the victim suffered from a stomachache and was taken to Shahpur houspital, where she delivered a baby girl on 08.04.2025. The opolice were informed of the birth of a baby girl, and the poClice visited the hospital. The victim filed an application in which she named the petitioner as the baby’s father. The police collected the biological sample of the petitioner, the victim and the baby, which were sent to the Regional Forensic Science HLaboratory (RFSL), Dharmshala. The DNA report issued by RFSL confirmed the petitioner to be the biological father of the baby girl. The police filed the chargesheet after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and the trial is continuing. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has been in custody for more than one year, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 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 used to reside with her sisters and parents. Her father was running a shop of Naan and Chhole. Her mother was working as a house help. The petitioner is the victim’s neighbour. He used to call the victim to his home and maintain a physical relationship with her. The victim suffered a stomachache on 08.04.2025, and she was taken to Shahpur hospital. The doctors disclosed that she was pregnant. She delivered a baby girl during the night. The petitioner used to threaten the victim that he would kill her if the incident were revealed to any person. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The biological samples of the petitioner, the victim and the baby girl were obtained and sent to RFSL Dharmshala. As per the report of the DNA analysis issued by RFSL Dharamshala, the petitioner’s DNA is consistent with his being the biological father of the baby girl. The police filed a chargesheet before the learned Trial Court on 06.06.2025 and a supplementary chargesheet on 15.07.2025. The statements of three prosecution witnesses are to be recorded, and the matter is listed on 29.04.2026 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and the victim who was present in the Court with her mother.

5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner,