Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case Citing Victim's Consent And Negative DNA Report

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has paved the way for the release of an accused in a heinous sexual assault case, observing that the victim's own support for the bail and a lack of forensic corroboration rendered further detention unjustified. Emphasizing the welfare of the victim, who is reportedly dependent on the accused, the Court ruled that procedural incarceration must yield to the practical realities of the parties' intent to marry.

Presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, the Court heard a regular bail application involving serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bench evaluated whether the gravity of the accusations outweighed the subsequent developments where the minor victim and her family expressed a 'no objection' to the petitioner's release.

Lack of Forensic Evidence and Victim's Stand

The Court noted that the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) did not show any physical injuries on the victim. Crucially, the status report revealed that the DNA samples did not match. The Court observed: "The MLC of the victim does not show any injury on her person. The status report mentions that the DNA sample of the petitioner and the informant did not match. Thus, prima facie, the MLC and report of analysis do not corroborate the informant’s version that she was beaten and subjected to sexual intercourse."

Furthermore, the victim appeared in person and stated she had no objection to the bail. She informed the Court that she was engaged to the petitioner and the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding triggered by a medical emergency.

Judicial Rationale on Personal Liberty

Referring to established precedents, the Court highlighted that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing the nature of the charge against the likelihood of the accused interfering with justice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is undisputed that the police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is already engaged to the victim as per her version. He is taking care of her, and the victim does not have any person to look after her. Hence, keeping the petitioner in custody would harm the victim’s interest."

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(iii) The petitioner will not leave the present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change."

Background

The petitioner was arrested following an FIR registered on June 8, 2026, at the Women Police Station, Nahan. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner took the 16-year-old victim to Nahan under the pretext of medical treatment and studies, where he allegedly subjected her to sexual intercourse and physical assault.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were false and that the victim was actually under the care of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pinki v. State of U.P. to discuss the broad principles of bail. The State opposed the plea, arguing that the victim’s minor status rendered her consent irrelevant. However, the Court found that since the charge-sheet was already filed and the DNA evidence was negative, further detention was not justified. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on a bail bond of ₹1,00,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 2038 of 2026
Case Title: Rohit v. State of HP
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 11155