Father gets bail in POCSO case as Himachal Pradesh High Court cites marital discord and delayed complaint, says exaggeration cannot be ruled out

The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case alleging offences under Section 75 of the BNS and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The allegation was that, on 19 April 2025, during a family visit to Timber Trail Hotel, the petitioner inappropriately touched his minor daughter and later apologised.

The complainant lodged a complaint in November 2025; the matter was subsequently registered in Himachal Pradesh, and the child’s statements were recorded during the investigation, including before a Magistrate.

The charge sheet had been filed, and the petitioner was in judicial custody.

The petitioner relied on the parties’ matrimonial and custody disputes, the delay in reporting, and earlier proceedings in which the alleged incident had not been mentioned.

His earlier applications for anticipatory bail had been dismissed.

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations and the prior dismissal of his anticipatory-bail applications.

2. Whether the circumstances—including completion of the investigation, delay in reporting, and the parties’ matrimonial and custody disputes—supported granting bail subject to safeguards.

Section 483 of the BNSS confers power to grant bail after arrest.

The Court relied on the distinction between anticipatory bail and post-arrest bail, explaining that their governing considerations differ and that dismissal of an anticipatory-bail application does not, by itself, determine a subsequent regular-bail application.

Citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, as discussed in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Court noted that bail discretion requires consideration of such matters as the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the circumstances of the case, the risk of absconding or witness interference, and the public interest.

The Court also referred to Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and R v. E, cited in the judgment in relation to alleged misuse of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were raised in argument concerning statutory presumptions; the judgment did not treat those presumptions as determinative of the bail application.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations and the child’s recorded statements, but considered that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the victim’s statement had been recorded repeatedly, including before a Magistrate.

It also took account of the substantial matrimonial and custody dispute, the delay in reporting, and the absence of any reference to the alleged harassment in earlier proceedings identified by the petitioner.

In light of those circumstances, the Court considered that exaggeration or a dispute-related motive could not be ruled out, while expressly limiting its observations to the bail decision.

It therefore found that the petitioner could be released subject to conditions intended to protect the witnesses and victim.

Conditions included non-interference with witnesses, appearance as directed, surrender of any passport and no departure from India without permission, and no contact with the victim or her mother until the victim’s statement was recorded at trial—and thereafter only with the Court’s express permission.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an opinion on the merits.