POCSO Act | Accused Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Because Victims Were Traumatised: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to four accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that bail cannot be denied merely on the ground that the victims would be traumatised.

Noting the submission of the State, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “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”.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking regular bail for offences punishable under Sections 126(2) (sexual harassment of women by assault or use of criminal force), 352 (punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation), 79 (common intention), and 78(1) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (sexual harassment of a child).

It was alleged by the complainant that the accused harassed his daughters, aged 13 and 14, while they were returning home from school. Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested.

The petitioners contended that they were innocent and were falsely implicated. Also, since they have been in custody for more than 4 months, the chargesheet has already been filed, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them in custody.

In response, the state contended that the petitioners had sexually harassed the victims. Their act frightened and traumatised the victims. Releasing the petitioners on bail will compromise the safety of the victims. Also, the petitioners would harass the other girls of the village if they were released on bail.

The Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that bail cannot be denied just because the victims would be traumatised by the acts of the petitioners.

The Court further remarked that “The petitioners 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 stated that the petitioners deserve a chance to reform themselves, and danger to the victims can be avoided by imposing strict conditions.

Case Name: Adil V/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1530 to 1533 of 2025

Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

For the Petitioner: M/s. Anirudh Sharma & Pavinder, Advocate, in all the petitions.

For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions.

Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for the informant.

Click Here To Read/Download Order