Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. Sequel to order(s) dated 6.5.2026, 12.5.2026 and 13.5.2026, whereby bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 60 of 2026, dated 30.04.2026, under Section 64(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4, 6 & 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, registered at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed the status report and Insp. Nirmal Singh, SHO & Insp. Dev Raj, Police Station Nadaun, have also come present with records. Records perused and returned.

2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officers present in the Court, states that petitioners have joined the investigation and at present, nothing remains to be recovered from them. He states that otherwise also, it has emerged in the evidence that though at the time of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was 17 year and 8 months old, but in the year 2025, victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner had solemnized love marriage and since then, victim-prosecutrix had been living in the house of the bail petitioner.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 30.4.2026, police received information from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhanota that two ladies, who are pregnant have come for check up. Since victim-prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was minor, matter was reported to the police. Police after having received afore information reached Civil Hospital Dhaneta and recorded the statement of victim-prosecutrix, who disclosed her date of birth to be 26.8.2008, meaning thereby at that time, she was 17 years and 8 months’ old. In her statement given to police, victim-prosecutrix, who is otherwise present in the Court, stated that she has solemnized marriage with petitioner and today, she has come to the hospital for her check up. Since at the time of commission of afore offences, victim-prosecutrix was minor coupled with the fact that she had solemnized marriage with bail petitioner namely Abhilash Dogra, police besides lodging case against him, also lodged cases against their family members i.e. Balwant Singh, Sheela Devi, Rajinder Kumar and Reena Kumari.

4. Pursuant to orders dated 6.5.2026, 12.5.2026 and 13.5.2026, complainant-victim-prosecutrix has come present along with her parents and parents of the bail petitioner.

5. Victim-prosecutrix, who has come present along with her parents, states that she of her own volition and without any external pressure had joined the company of the bail petitioner. She stated that FIR is result of misunderstanding because neither same was lodged by her nor by her family members, rather matter came to be reported to police by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhaneta, where she along with bail petitioner and other family members had come for check up. She stated that since she and bail petitioner have already solemnized marriage with each other and she is four months’ pregnant coupled with the fact that she is living happily with her in-laws, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

6. Parents of the victim-prosecutrix, who are also present in the Court state on behalf of victim-prosecutrix that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have come present before this court to make statement that their daughter and bail petitioner have already solemnized marriage with each other. FIR is result of misunderstanding because neither they nor victim-prosecutrix made a complaint against the bail petitioner, rather information was received by police from Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Dhanota, where they had come for check up. They stated that since their daughter after marriage is living happily with her in laws and bail petitioner coupled with the fact that they are also expecting a child, they do not wish to pro