2025:HHC:18373 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1030 of 2025 Reserved on: 03.06.2025 Date of Decision: 17. 06.2025 V (name withheld to protect his identity) ...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. Rahul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General with SI/Additional SHO Gopal Singh, Police Station Sadar Solan, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. No. 320 of 2018 dated 30.10.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A) and 302 of IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are false. He is innocent and has not committed any crime. He has been in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:18373 judicial custody since 30.10.2018 and is not required for investigation. The charges were framed on 27.02.2025 and the matter was listed for prosecution’s evidence on 20.3.2025, however, no witness was examined on that day and now the matter is listed on 28.06.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is 23 years old and he belongs to a respectable family. He has roots in the society. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The police filed a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on 30.10.2018 that his son Nagesh had left for the school on 30.10.2018. The informant received a call at 10:45 am and the caller demanded a ransom of ₹ 50,000/-. The caller said that the child would be returned after the payment of the ransom. The police registered the FIR. The police tried to ascertain the location of the caller but the caller was switching his mobile phone on and off. Police also checked the CCTV footage and found that Nagesh was going with an unknown person towards Majhgaon. The police found that Nagesh had accompanied a stranger. The caller again made a call for the ransom. The police traced the call to Children's Park near 3 2025:HHC:18373 the Old DC office where the petitioner was found. The police enquired about Nagesh and the petitioner revealed that Nagesh was with him in the morning. The police interrogated the petitioner and he revealed that he wanted to go to Nepal and was looking for easy money. Nagesh met him and took him to a jungle. Nagesh tried to run away. The petitioner thought that Nagesh would disclose his identity, hence he caught Nagesh by his neck and strangulated him to death. The petitioner demanded the ransom after causing the death of Nagesh. The police searched the petitioner and found the identity card of the school, a mobile phone and a black mask. These were seized. The petitioner made the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and led the police to the place where the dead body of Nagesh was buried. The postmortem examination of Nagesh was conducted. The police recorded the statements of witnesses and filed a challan against the petitioner before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Solan who committed it to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Solan. 3. A letter was received from Superintendent Jail during the proceedings stating that the petitioner had raised the question of juvenility at the time of the commission of the crime. 4 2025:HHC:18373 The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan where the matter was pending, went through the documents and found that the petitioner was a child within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 at the time of the commission of the offence; hence he forwarded the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. 4. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted the inquiry and held vide order dated 23.09.2019 that the petitioner was to be tried by Children Court, Solan, hence the matter was submitted to learned Children Court, Solan. 5. Learned Sessions Judge Solan held that the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court Solan was a Children's Court within the meaning of Section(2) (20) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015; hence, the matter was sent to Children's Court. 6. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Solan set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board with the direction to obtain a complete report from the 5 2025:HHC:18373 clinical Psychologist to determine whether the petitioner had insight into the crime and the consequences thereof. 7. The Juvenile Justice Board held vide order dated 04.07.2022 that the petitioner was physically and mentally capable of committing the crime for which the charge sheet was submitted before the Board. The Juvenile needed to be tried as an adult within the meaning of Sections 15 and 18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act. The matter was submitted to the Children's Court. 8. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order dated 20.06.2021, which was dismissed by this Court on 04.10.2024. Learned Trial Court framed the charges on 27.02.2025 witnesses out of 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 28.06.2025. 9. I have heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Legal-aid- counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 10. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Legal-aid-counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely 6 2025:HHC:18373 implicated. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 7 years. His trial has not started and his right to speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon judgments passed by this Court in Balak Ram vs. State of H.P. CrMP(M) No. 2354 of 2023 decided on 01.12.2023, AK (Minor) vs. State of H.P. Lates HLJ 2025(HP)(1)304, and Sunil Tegta vs. State of H.P. 2024:HHC 8868 in support of his submission. 11. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime, which is punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner is a resident of Nepal. He is likely to abscond in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 7 2025:HHC:18373 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to 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 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] .] 14. 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 8 2025:HHC:18373 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 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) 9 2025:HHC:18373 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 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) 15 This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 16. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. A perusal of the status report shows that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He was found in possession of one mask, which was detected in the 10 2025:HHC:18373 CCTV footage. He was found in possession of a mobile from which calls were made to the informant. The identity card of Nagesh was recovered from the petitioner’s possession. These circumstances show that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner and he had also got recovered the dead body of the deceased. He had called the informant for ransom and a prima facie case is made out against him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC. 18. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2023 CCL “V” vs State of H.P. decided on 04.10.2024 shows that the petitioner had claimed his juvenility. He had assailed various orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board by filing appeals/revisions. The proceedings attained finality when this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings could not continue till 04.10.2024 because of various petitions filed by the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay. 11 2025:HHC:18373 19. The status report shows that that charge was framed on 27.02.2025. 5 witnesses have been examined and the matter is now listed on 28.06.2025. The examination of five witnesses within three months does not show any delay in the trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground of delay and the judgments passed in Bal Ram (supra) and Sunil Tegta (supra) do not apply to the present case. The petitioner was found to be an adult and the judgment passed in A.K (minor) (supra), does not apply to the present case. Thus, none of the cited judgments applies to the present case. 20. No other point was urged. 21. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 22. 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 17th June, 2025 (ravinder)