Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner namely Vikram Singh, who is behind bars since 20.3.2026, 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.0018 of 2026 dated 20.3.2026, registered at Police Station Renuka Ji, 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 6.5.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Komal Chand, 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 19.3.2026, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dadahu, informed the police that one girl, who claims herself to be 18 years old, has been brought for delivery. Police after having received afore information reached the hospital and found that date of birth of the girl, who was brought for delivery, was 24.2.2008, meaning thereby, at the relevant time, she was a minor. Police recorded the statement of the victim-prosecutrix, who alleged that she is studying in Class-10 and her date of birth is 24.2.2008. She disclosed to the police that in the month of February 2026, she has turned eighteen. She alleged that petitioner herein had developed physical relations with her on 4-5 occasions and few days back, she felt pain in her abdomen and as such, she was brought to the hospital for check up, where she came to know that she is pregnant. In the afore background, FIR in question came to be lodged against the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 20.3.2026 and since then, he is behind the bars.

4. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law 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. Subodh Bhatia and Mr. Pranav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated because nothing happened against the wishes of victim-prosecutrix, rather she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure joined the company of the petitioner with whom she wants to solemnize marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that though at the time of the alleged incident, age of victim-prosecutrix was 17 ½ years, but after delivery of child, she along with her minor baby is residing in the house of the bail petitioner. He stated that victim-prosecutrix, who has come present in the Court, does not wish to prosecute the case further, rather she wants to solemnize marriage immediately after grant of bail to the petitioner because now she has attained majority.

6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, stated 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 submitted 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 sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as a result of which, she 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 17 ½ years’ old. He stated that since statement of victim-prosecutrix is yet to be recorded in the competent court of law, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, who in that event, may cause harm to the victim-prosecutri