Himachal Pradesh High Court | Bail Cannot Be Denied Under POCSO Merely Because Victims Were Traumatised | Four Accused Released with Strict Safeguards After Four Months’ Custody
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has allowed a set of petitions seeking regular bail and directed that the petitioners be released on bail, subject to strict conditions. The Court ordered their release on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The directives further included specific conditions aimed at ensuring that the petitioners do not intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or contact the victims. The Court made it expressly clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution would have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
The petitions arose out of an FIR registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on 11 March 2025. The FIR invoked offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 79, and 78(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The allegations were that the petitioners harassed two minor girls, aged 13 and 14 years, while they were returning from school, and followed them to their home. The FIR named four individuals who subsequently filed separate bail petitions, all of which were heard together by the High Court to avoid repetition.
The petitioners, through their counsel, asserted that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that they were permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in their petitions, and there was no likelihood of their absconding. The petitioners assured the Court of their willingness to abide by any conditions imposed upon them.
The prosecution, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the petitions, maintaining that the accused had sexually harassed the victims and frightened them, causing trauma. It was argued that releasing them on bail would compromise the safety of the victims. Counsel for the informant supported the State’s position and submitted that the petitioners had earlier sought bail before the Trial Court, which was rejected. It was contended that concurrent jurisdiction required a change in circumstances for the High Court to entertain the matter. It was also alleged that the petitioners posed a continuing risk to other girls in the village if released.
The petitioners had been arrested on 4 April 2025, and the police completed investigation and filed a charge sheet on 22 April 2025. The petitioners had by the time of hearing remained in custody for more than four months.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla recorded that the grant of bail in cases involving serious offences must be considered with reference to established principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Referring to Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768, the Court quoted: “While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”
Justice Kainthla further referred to Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, which stated: “The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective.” It was also recorded that in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, the Supreme Court observed: “The words ‘any condition’ used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.”
The Court noted the contention raised by counsel for the informant that the petitions were not maintainable since they followed rejection of bail by the Sessions Court. However, referring to Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State, 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 277, Justice Kainthla observed: “The power given by section 439 to the High Court or to the Sessions Court is an independent power and thus, when the High Court acts in the exercise of such power it does not exercise any revisional jurisdictions, but its original special jurisdiction to grant bail. This being so, it becomes obvious that although under section 439 Cr. P.C. concurrent jurisdiction is given to the High Court and Sessions Court the fact that the Sessions Court has refused a bail under Section 439 does not operate as a bar for the High Court entertaining a similar application under section 439 on the same facts and for the same offence.”
On the merits, the Court recorded that while the victims had been traumatised, “that is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners. They would be convicted and sentenced for the offence committed by them, if found guilty, but bail cannot be denied as a punishment to them before their conviction.” The Court further recorded that the petitioners had no prior criminal record, were permanent residents, and had already spent more than four months in custody. It was also observed that the risk to the victims could be addressed through strict conditions imposed on the grant of bail.
The High Court ordered the release of the petitioners on bail. It directed that the petitioners furnish bail bonds of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court stated: “While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions.”
The conditions recorded included that the petitioners would not intimidate the witnesses or influence any evidence, and they would attend the trial on each hearing without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The petitioners were further directed not to leave their present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the Station House Officer, the Police Station, and the Trial Court. They were required to surrender their passports, if any, to the Court, and furnish their mobile numbers and social media contact details to both the Police and the Court, with an undertaking to update any changes within five days.
The Court imposed a condition prohibiting the petitioners from visiting the village where the victims resided or attempting to contact them in any manner during the pendency of the proceedings. It expressly stated: “In case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.” The order also directed that a copy be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail Solan and the Trial Court through FASTER, and clarified that a downloaded copy of the order would be accepted for the purpose of furnishing bail bonds.
The Court concluded that these directions were issued solely for the disposal of the petitions and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. Anirudh Sharma & Pavinder, Advocates, in all the petitions
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions; Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for the informant
Case Title: ABC v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:28988
Case Number: Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1530 to 1533 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
