Fact That Victims Would Be Traumatised Not Sufficient To Deny Bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail With Conditions In POCSO Case

The petitioners filed the petitions seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 352, 79 and 78(1) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla said, “A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioners had harassed the victims, who were aged 13 and 14 years. They also followed them to their home. There is a force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent/State that the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners. However, 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.”

Advocate Anirudh Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Additional State Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The informant had made a complaint to the police that Armaan, Gufran, Soaib and Adil (petitioners) harassed the informant’s daughters aged 13 years and 14 years when they were returning from school. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioners and filed a charge sheet.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the Status Report, the Bench found that the petitioners had harassed the victims, who were aged 13 and 14 years. They also followed them to their home. “There is a force in the submission made on behalf of the respondent/State that the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners. However, 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 status report mentioned that there was no other case was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners had already spent more than 4 months in prison. “They deserve a chance to reform themselves. As far as the danger to the victims by the release of the petitioners on bail is concerned, the same can be avoided by imposing strict conditions”, the Bench held.

Considering that the petitioners asserted that they are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned by them in the bail petitions, and the same was not stated to be incorrect in the status reports, the Bench held that there was no chance of the petitioners absconding.

Allowing the Petitions, the Bench ordered the petitioners to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds for Rs 1 lakh each.

Cause Title: Adil v. State of H.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:28988)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Anirudh Sharma, Pavinder

Respondent: Additional State Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria

Click here to read/download Order