( 2025:HHC:16069 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 822 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.05.2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 Mohd. Jaseem ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 82 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 75, 351(3) & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2( 2025:HHC:16069 ) The petitioner and his friends were going to Tara Devi Temple on 12.03.2025. The victim and other persons attacked the petitioner and his friends. They sustained multiple injuries. A false case was lodged against the petitioner by the victim to save her brother. The petitioner is residing at New Nalagarh, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P). He has roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would join the investigation and also abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that the victim, aged 13 years, was coming to her home on 11.03.2025. Jaseem Khan- petitioner, Shakir Mohammad & other persons touched her inappropriately. She shouted for help and ran towards her home. Santosh, Karan & Sanket ran to save her. The assailants took out a sword and pistol and threatened to kill the people who were trying to rescue the victim. The police registered the FIR. It was found during the investigation that Karan, Sanket & Santosh had seen the incident. They made inquiries from the petitioner and his friends. No sharp-edged weapon was used. The pistol stated to have been used was found 3( 2025:HHC:16069 ) to be a gas lighter and not a genuine pistol. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The victim’s father had made an exaggerated report to the police, much of which was found to be false. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner had only touched the informant inappropriately. He has been in custody for more than two months. The charge sheet has not been filed, and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely, hoping for an early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He not only touched the victim inappropriately, but also quarrelled with the 4( 2025:HHC:16069 ) people who came to rescue her. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed on page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis 5( 2025:HHC:16069 ) Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several 6( 2025:HHC:16069 ) decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the 7( 2025:HHC:16069 ) circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the petitioner and his friends had threatened the informant party with a sword and pistol. It was found during the investigation that no sword was used, the pistol was only a toy/gas lighter and other people were not involved. This prima facie shows that an exaggerated version was recorded in the FIR, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same. 12. The status report further shows that a charge sheet is being prepared, which means that it will take some time to prepare the charge sheet, and thereafter, some time will be spent during the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely, hoping for an early conclusion of the trial. 8( 2025:HHC:16069 ) Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the result of the investigation, in which many of the allegations were found to be false, the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner can indulge in the commission of the crime in case of his release on bail. He can also intimidate the witnesses. Therefore, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner. This is a mere apprehension which can be removed by imposing conditions, and this apprehension is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 14. In view of the above, 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 two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, will abide by the following terms and 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 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 9( 2025:HHC:16069 ) address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (vi) 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. 15. 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. 16. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case 7. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Kishanpura Jail at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the 10( 2025:HHC:16069 ) petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) 27th May 2025 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f23c9ea 27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291962d0d 90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-05-27 12:16:38 KARAN SINGH GULERIA