Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1125 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.06.2025 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025. Shakil Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 167 of 2024, dated 11.09.2024, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 342, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court on 08.11.2024. The matter was listed before the learned Sessions Judge for consideration of the charge on 20.05.2025. The petitioner has been behind the bars for nine months. No charges have been framed so far. The petitioner was falsely implicated, and there is nothing to connect him with the commission of the crime. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that she was confined by the accused in his room. He used to threaten her to implicate her in a false case and make her video viral. He would beat her, and whenever the informant attempted to run away, the accused would threaten to kill the informant’s daughter. The accused created four fake IDs in the name of the informant, and he sent an indecent video of the informant to her relatives. He threatened to kill the informant in case she did not obtain a divorce from her husband. She obtained a divorce from 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) her husband under pressure from the accused. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner. The samples were sent to the FSL, and no blood or semen was detected in the samples analysed in the laboratory. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and the matter is listed before the learned Sessions Judge on 02.07.2025; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of the crime. The statement of the victim is inherently improbable. Her statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence or the report of the FSL. The charge sheet has been submitted to the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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 at 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) 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] .] 9. 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) 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) 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) 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) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. A perusal of the status report shows that the informant is a major, and she has a daughter. She claimed that the accused kept her confined to a room and gave her beatings. She also claimed that the accused compelled her to seek a divorce from her husband, and she obtained the divorce as per the wishes of the accused. These averments are prima facie contradictory because if the victim was confined to the room, she could not have obtained the divorce, and if she was able to obtain the divorce, she could have made a complaint regarding her confinement. She claimed that the petitioner had sent her indecent videos from her 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) Facebook ID and the Facebook ID of her daughter; however, the police failed to recover any indecent videos. The MLC also does not show that the victim had sustained any injuries. All these circumstances make out a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. 13. The police have filed the charge sheet on 08.11.2024, and the matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 02.07.2025, which means that the charges have not been framed so far, even though six months have elapsed since the filing of the charge sheet. A photocopy of the charge sheet produced before the Court shows that the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses, which means that the trial is not likely to conclude soon. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody indefinitely, hoping for an early conclusion of the trial. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, and he would abscond in case of his release on bail. These apprehensions are not sufficient to detain the petitioner in custody, as these apprehensions can be removed by imposing conditions upon the petitioner. 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) 15. 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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) 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. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19370 ) investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the 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) Judge 23rd June, 2025 (saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.06.23 14:54:34 NPT