Yogesh Kumar vs State Of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 47 of 2025, dated 15.11.2025, registered at Woman Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (SC & ST Act).

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim made a complaint to the police that the petitioner had molested her. The police registered an FIR and investigated the matter. Subsequently, the victim’s maternal uncle made a statement that the petitioner had told him on the telephone that he (the petitioner) used to treat the daughters of weavers like this. The petitioner had molested the victim because she belonged to the scheduled caste. These allegations are false. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of 10 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Solan, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim had made a statement to the police on 15.11.2025, stating that the petitioner had molested her on 2.11.2025. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The victim’s uncle made a statement that the petitioner had abused him and the victim in the name of his caste on 14.11.2025. The petitioner also claimed that he had molested the victim because of her caste. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet on 8.1.2026. The matter was listed for the supply of copies. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Lovneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the victim.

Mr Lovneesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The allegations regarding the commission of an offence punishable under the SC & ST Act were made subsequently to aggravate the nature of the offence. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had molested a minor girl belonging to the scheduled caste because of her caste. The petitioner had confessed to the molestation in a call made to the victim’s uncle because of the victim’s caste. This shows scant regard for human dignity. The trial has not yet commenced, and the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

Mr Rakesh Chaudhary learned legal aid counsel adopted the submissions of Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious oflences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)

In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied)

This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the oflence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the oflence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the oflence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

xxxxxxx

One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)

“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the oflence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The status report shows that the incident occurred on 2.11.2025 and the matter was reported to the police on 15.11.2025. No allegation of the petitioner having made the call to the victim’s uncle was made in the complaint, even though the victim’s uncle claimed that the call was made to him on 14.11.2025. This makes it prima facie difficult to rely upon the prosecution's version.

The status report shows that the police have filed a charge sheet before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w) of the SC and ST Act, which can be punished with five years imprisonment each. The petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2025, and he has spent more than three months in prison. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the petitioner is not required for the investigation. The status report is silent regarding the necessity of the continuing pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the delay in reporting the matter to the police and the absence of any caste-based remarks in the FIR, the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified.

It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the victim after his release on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing the conditions. Further, the victim did not appear before the Court to oppose the petition or to claim that the petitioner would intimidate her in case of his release on bail. Thus, this submission does not have a factual foundation and cannot be used to deny bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Solan, and he has roots in the society. Therefore, there is no apprehension of the petitioner absconding.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions:-

(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 address 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.

It is expressly made clear that 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 petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan, District Solan, HP and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits.