Introduction:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Adil v. State of H.P. (Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1530 to 1533 of 2025), decided on 27 August 2025, addressed a sensitive matter involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The petitioners, represented by advocates M/s. Anirudh Sharma and Pavinder, sought regular bail after being accused of sexually harassing two minor girls aged 13 and 14 while they were returning from school. The respondents, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Lokender Kutlehria along with advocate Mr. Ankit Dhiman for the informant, opposed the bail plea on the ground that the acts of the accused had traumatised the victims and releasing them would jeopardize the safety of children in the village. The Court, however, granted bail to the petitioners while reiterating that bail cannot be used as a form of pre-trial punishment and that the presumption of innocence must be respected until conviction.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case due to local enmity and exaggeration of facts. They highlighted that they had already spent over four months in custody and that the chargesheet had been filed, thereby removing the possibility of tampering with evidence. It was further contended that no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind bars during the pendency of the trial. The petitioners also relied upon the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, stressing that prolonged incarceration before conviction amounts to a denial of their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Their counsel submitted that the allegations, though serious, would be tested during the trial and at this stage, keeping the accused in custody would amount to pre-judging the matter. The petitioners also contended that they were first-time offenders and posed no risk of absconding or interfering with the trial if released on bail.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, strongly opposed the bail plea. It was submitted that the petitioners had committed an act of sexual harassment against two minor girls, an offence that falls squarely under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 126(2), 352, 78(1), and 79. The State argued that the petitioners’ actions had frightened and traumatised the victims, causing psychological harm that could have long-term consequences. The prosecution emphasized that granting bail to the petitioners would not only compromise the safety of the victims but would also send a negative message to society at large, particularly to other girls in the community who might feel unsafe if the accused were released. The State also warned that the petitioners might indulge in similar acts of harassment against other children in the village if they were granted bail. The counsel for the informant supported this line of argument and added that releasing the accused would further traumatize the victims, as they would have to live in constant fear of encountering their harassers in the village.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, after carefully considering the submissions of both sides, held that the apprehension of trauma to the victims, though genuine, cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the petitioners. The Court observed that while the State had raised valid concerns regarding the safety and well-being of the victims, the law mandates that bail cannot be refused merely as a pre-trial punishment. The Court emphasized that if the petitioners are ultimately found guilty during the trial, they would be convicted and sentenced accordingly. However, until that stage, they must be treated as under the presumption of innocence. Justice Kainthla underlined that bail is not to be denied as a form of punishment before conviction. The Court also remarked that the criminal justice system must strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of victims, and that such balance can be achieved by imposing strict bail conditions. These conditions would ensure that the petitioners do not attempt to contact, influence, or harass the victims, and do not indulge in any unlawful activities while on bail. The Court further held that the accused deserve an opportunity to reform themselves and reiterated the principle that the object of bail is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during trial. Thus, the High Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to strict conditions designed to safeguard the victims and uphold the sanctity of the trial process.