"Crime Was Not Lust But Love": Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail to POCSO 'Husband' Amid Family Plea

In a compassionate ruling blending strict law with human realities, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted regular bail to Suneel Kumar, accused under the stringent Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Justice Sandeep Sharma emphasized that continued jail time would harm the minor victim-prosecutrix—who has already married the petitioner and borne his child—more than serve justice. The decision, delivered on April 2, 2026, in Suneel Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (Cr.MP(M) No. 396 of 2026), underscores the court's reluctance to fracture a willing family unit.

A Hospital Birth Ignites a POCSO Probe

The saga began on January 15, 2026, at Civil Hospital Chowari in Chamba district. Police received word of a minor girl admitted for childbirth. Accompanied by relatives unable to prove her age or marriage, the girl was confirmed underage. Suneel Kumar, claiming to be her husband, was arrested, leading to FIR No. 5 of 2026 at Police Station Chowari under POCSO and BNS provisions for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.

Kumar had been in custody since January 5, 2026. With the chargesheet filed and no recovery pending, he sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The victim, short of 17 years at FIR registration, appeared in court with her mother-in-law, affirming their voluntary marriage and happy life together.

Petitioner's Cry: Marriage Trumps Technical Crime

Advocate Vijay Chaudhary argued the couple had married before the FIR, with the girl living contentedly in Kumar's family home. He highlighted the newborn child, warning that the father's absence would burden the minor mother unduly. "Petitioner can be said to have committed heinous crime... but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that victim-prosecutrix has already given birth to a child," Chaudhary urged, pushing for bail given the established marriage.

State's Caution: Gravity Over Consent

Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan conceded the chargesheet's filing but stressed the offense's severity. Even if consensual, the minor's age rendered her agreement irrelevant per Supreme Court precedents. Yet, he admitted slim conviction prospects based on the girl's stance. No flight risk or tampering concerns were pressed, though the state flagged potential trial disruptions.

Law Yields to Life: Precedents of Empathy in POCSO Realm

Justice Sharma dissected the case through landmark lenses. Central was the Supreme Court's K. Kirubakaran v. State of T.N. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307), where justices noted: "the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim... expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life... Continuation of the criminal proceedings... would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself."

The court invoked Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 49 for bail's non-punitive aim: "Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial." Echoing Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) and Manoranjana Sinh v. CBI (2017) 5 SCC 218, it reaffirmed innocence presumption and "bail, not jail" as norm. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 guided balancing factors like absconding risk—absent here.

No prima facie flight threat existed; the girl's court statement under Section 183 BNSS confirmed voluntary union, dooming prosecution chances.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On family fallout : "this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, because in that event, ultimate sufferer would be victim-prosecutrix, who would otherwise be left alone to raise her minor child."

  • Echoing Apex Court : "where the child was born as a result of love and not lust and the victim expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life, the incarceration of the husband would disrupt the family unit."

  • Innocence rule : "one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law."

  • Victim's voice : The prosecutrix "fairly admitted factum of her relationship and marriage... stated before this Court that she of her own volition... had joined the company of bail petitioner."

Bail with Strings: Justice Tempered by Safeguards

Kumar was released on Rs. 50,000 personal bond with one surety, bound to attend trial, shun tampering, and seek travel permission. Misuse invites cancellation. Observations stay bail-specific, not merits-reflective.

This ruling signals courts may lean toward bail in POCSO "romantic runaway" marriages with offspring, prioritizing welfare over rigid incarceration—especially post-chargesheet. Yet, it reaffirms minors' vulnerability, consent's irrelevance, and trial imperatives, potentially guiding future compassionate exercises without undermining the Act's shield.