( 2025:HHC:16516 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1009 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025. Salam Deen ...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. Sahil Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. HC Ranjeev No.15, I/o PS Amb, District Una (H.P), present in person with police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 115/2024, dated 13.09.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305 & 331(4) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offences and he was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) falsely implicated based on the statements made by one Sanjeev Kumar, three days after the commission of the offence. He stated to the police that he had seen two motorcycles in the intervening night of 10/11.09.2024. He mentioned the registration number of one motorcycle as PB-07CG-0881 and stated that the motorcycle rider might have committed the theft. The police obtained the ownership details of the motorcycle and arrested the petitioner. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The FIR No.238/2023 dated 05.10.2003, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 336, 332, 147, 148 and 506 of IPC, was registered at PS Bari Brahmna, District Samba (Jammu & Kashmir), FIR No.263/23 dated 19.11.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 224 & 382 of IPC, was registered at PS Bari Brahmna, District Samba (Jammu & Kashmir), FIR No.263/23 dated 19.11.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 355, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC, was registered at PS Sarkaghat, District Mandi & FIR No.95/2024 dated 16.09.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) BNS, was registered at PS Gagret, District Una against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received an information regarding the theft in the house of Ravinder Kumar on 30.06.2024. The police went to the spot and verified the information. It was found that gold and silver ornaments were missing. Raghudutt Kumar visited the police station and stated that he was running a shop of electronics repair. He came to know that the police had caught one thief. He identified the apprehended person as the one who was seen moving in the village with another person on a motorcycle. The petitioner was arrested in another FIR No.115/2024. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The petitioner revealed during the interrogation that he had committed a theft with another person in the village. The petitioner was found to be involved in the commission of theft in the house of Ravinder Kumar. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that he could get the ornaments recovered. He led the police and got recovered 04 earrings weighing 14.81 grams. The police seized the earrings. Other cases were also registered against the petitioner. The police arrested the co-accused Liyakat Ali @ Pulwanu. The police obtained the call detail record and found that he had never been in touch with the petitioner; his presence was found at Mukeria (Punjab). The police have filed the 4 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.05.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Sahil Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Sahil Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged on 28.11.2024, whereas theft had taken place on 30.06.2024. There is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had got the ornaments recovered, which prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of a crime. The petitioner had escaped from custody, and an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC was registered against him. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to commit a similar crime if he 5 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) is released on bail. Hence, 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “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 6 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) justice. Several 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, 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 application for bail 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the petitioner was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 04 earrings weighing 14.81 grams. A theft had taken place in the house of Ravinder Kumar, in which gold and silver ornaments were stolen. The recovery at the instance of the petitioner prima facie shows his involvement in the commission of the crime. 10. The petition itself mentions that 05 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of such offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 8 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) 11. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of his criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 12. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of an offence, similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA.” 13. The FIR No.263/23 dated 19.11.2023, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 224 & 382 of IPC. It means that the petitioner had escaped from custody. His conduct of escaping from the custody 9 ( 2025:HHC:16516 ) means that his presence cannot be secured in case of his release on bail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this consideration. 14. The petitioner is involved in the commission of the theft after committing the house trespass. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not so serious as to justify his pre-trial detention. However, in the present case, keeping in view the criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner had escaped from the custody, he is not entitled to bail. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 16. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th May, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)