Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No.731 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having been in custody since January 2026 for offences involving a minor victim, sought bail. The victim, who had lived with the petitioner since May 2025 and given birth to a child, appeared before the court and stated that the relationship was consensual. She expressed a desire for the petitioner's release to support their family.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim, now recently attained majority, requested bail for the petitioner, emphasizing their marriage and the existence of a child. Following Apex Court precedent, the court prioritized the preservation of the family unit, noting that the investigation was complete and trial was pending.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a POCSO/BNS case involving a minor victim despite the nature of the offence, considering the current status of their marriage and the birth of a child.
Ratio Decidendi: When a criminal act is born of love and results in a stable family unit/child, and the victim explicitly seeks the release of the accused to maintain that family, the court should exercise compassionate discretion to avoid irreparable harm to the victim and infant, while ensuring the trial process is not compromised.
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S. Gill
For the Respondents: Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu
Sandeep Sharma, J.
(Oral)
h Bail petitioner namely Satish Kumar, who is behind bars since g16.1.2026, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.5 of 2026 dated 15.1.2026, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “Act”).
2. In terms of order dated 30.4.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Satish Kumar, PS. Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present with record. Complainant victim-prosecutrix has also come present pursuant to intimation given to her by the Investigating Officer in terms of afore order.
3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 14.1.2026, police after having rece ived telephonic information from Nahan Hospital, that one minor girrl has been brought for delivery, reached the hospital and recorded the statement of girl, who stated that she is 12th pass and for the opast four years, has been frequently talking and meeting to bail petitCioner Satish Kumar. Allegedly, in the month of May 2025, bail petitioner, made her elope with him and since then, she had been residing at hhis residence at Mandoli Ghat. She alleged that during afore period, bail petitioner developed physical relations with her as a result of which, on 14.1.2026, she has delivered one child. Since at the time of the alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor i.e. 17 years and 9 months, FIR in question came to be lodged against the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars.
4. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.
5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that as per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, she had been residing with the bail petitioner since May 2025 of her own volition. He states that though in the year 2025 , victim-prosecutrix was minor, but it is also a fact that victim-prorsecutrix and bail petitioner had solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock, one child has also been born. He states that now victim-porosecutrix has turned major and she does not wish to prosecute tChe case further.
6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, whihle fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. He submits that though there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of the victim-prosecutrix, firstly made her to elope with him and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as a result of which, she also became pregnant, but even if it is presumed that nothing happened against her wishes, such fact may not be of much relevance because admittedly at the time of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor, however learned Additional Advocate General fairly admits factum with regard to delivery of child as well as report of FSL, wherein petitioner and victim-prosecutrix have been found to be biological parents of the child.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix had been meeting theo bail petitioner for the last four years prior to lodging of FIR. Since May 2025, she had been residing in the house of the bail petitioner as his wife. Though there is no document/evidence adduced on rechord suggestive of the fact that bail peti
