Indefinite judicial custody during a slow-paced trial, after the examination of material witnesses and completion of investigation, constitutes prohibited pre-trial punishment, justifying the grant of bail regardless of the severity of the offence.

Virender Singh, Judge

1. Applicant-Pawan Kumar has filed the present petition, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.73 of 2024, dated 02.12.2024, registered under Sections 64 , 96 and 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested by the Police, in the present case, and presently, he is in the judicial custody.

3. The relief of bail has been sought on the ground that the investigation, in the present case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from him, or, at his instance.

4. The child victim, according to the applicant, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Asserting the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest i.e. 02.12.2024, according to him, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody.

5. It is the further case of the applicant that the trial is progressing with a very slow pace and the case is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, as such, there are no chances of conclusion of trial against him, in near future.

6. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving the bail applications, before this Court bearing CRMPM No. 1054 of 2025 and CRMPM No. 2172 of 2025, however, his applications were dismissed, vide orders dated 20.5.2025 and 3.9.2025, respectively.

7. Thereafter, he has tried his luck by moving the bail application before the learned trial Court, bearing Bail Application No. 402-BA/22 of 2025, which was also dismissed on 12.01.2026.

8. Apart from this, Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

10. On 7.5.2026, by way of supplementary affidavit, the applicant has brought on record the details of the cases, registered against him, which are (i) FIR No. 72 of 2023, dated 9.4.2023, under Section 379 of IPC and FIR No. 104 of 2023, dated 26.5.2023, under Section 379 of IPC at Police Station Solan, District Solan, HP.

11. According to the applicant, the above material facts could not be mentioned in the bail application, on account of poor communication, as well as, owing to the illiteracy of the father of the applicant.

12. In this case, the child victim has also been impleaded as respondent No.2.

13. When put to notice, both the respondents have filed the status reports/reply.

14. The State has filed the status report disclosing therein, that the complainant (name withheld) moved a complaint to the police, that he is resident of place ‘x’ and his daughter (child victim) aged about 15 years has been enticed away by applicant-Pawan Kumar on 30.11.2024. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly made a call from his mobile number (number withheld) on 30.11.2024, disclosing to the complainant that he has kidnapped his daughter and they cannot cause any harm to him. According to the complainant, the applicant also sta