2025:HHC:16995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMPs(M) No. : 1038 to 1041 of 2025 Decided on : 30.05.2025 CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025 Veena Devi …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025 Sanjeev Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent CrMP(M) No.1040 of 2025 Raj Kumari …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent CrMP(M) No.1041 of 2025 Manoj Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s) : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16995 For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by the common order, as, all the four bail applications have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.71/2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. 2. These bail applications have been filed by the above-named applicants, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for passing a direction, in their favour, directing the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above-noted FIR. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case. 4. It is the case of the applicants that they have no connection, whatsoever, with the crime, as alleged against them, in the FIR in question. 3 2025:HHC:16995 5. Elaborating their stand, it is the further case of the applicants that Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2023, with the complainant, for a total sale consideration of Rs.37,10,000/- and an advance payment of Rs.20,00,000/- was made, at the time of Agreement to Sell and remaining payment was to be made, at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, as per the case, set up by the applicants, the sale deed could not be executed within the prescribed period and thereafter, the said period was extended firstly up to 03.07.2023, then 15.09.2023 and thereafter, 16.12.2023. 6. It is the further case of the applicants that due to the non-execution of the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, he had filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell, bearing Civil Suit No.10/2025, which is stated to be pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, H.P. and is stated to be fixed for 21.06.2025. 7. All these facts have been pleaded to show that the bone of contention, between the parties, is the Agreement to Sell, on the basis of which, the suit for specific performance has been filed. In other words, they 4 2025:HHC:16995 have asserted that the dispute, between the parties, is civil in nature. 8. It is the further case of the applicants that the complainant wants to coerce them to extort money, on the pretext of registration of FIR. 9. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./police of PS Haroli, in this case. 10. Vide order dated 07.05.2025, State was directed to file the status report. 11. As per the status report, which has been filed on 07.05.2025, on 01.05.2025, complainant-Ashok Kumar appeared before the police of PS Haroli and moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint, and on 29.04.2023, at about 11:00 am, Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Krishan Singh (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and Veena Devi @Beena Devi, W/o Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) came to him in his Village Chhetra and thereafter, discussion had taken place, with 5 2025:HHC:16995 regard to the sale of land, measuring 0-13-43 bigha, situated in Mohal Polian, Tehsil Dulehar, District Una. The said land was stated to be mortgaged with HDFC Bank, Branch Una and they have also disclosed that bank is pressuring hard for the repayment of the amount. As such, they have expressed their intention to sell the land. 11.1. As per further assertion, made by the complainant, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and Veena Devi @Beena Devi (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) have demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money and also disclosed that Rs.18,00,000/- is required to be deposited with the bank, so that the bank could not declare them defaulter. They have assured that after depositing the amount in their account and getting the land redeemed, they will execute the sale deed. 11.2. Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and his wife Veena Devi (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) had also shown the land on the spot. Subsequently, bargain was struck for a sum of Rs.53,000/- per marla. Rs.2,00,000/- was given as earnest money to Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and Agreement to Sell was written and 6 2025:HHC:16995 the last date was fixed as 04.05.2023 and it has been agreed to execute the Agreement to Sell on 04.05.2023. Consequently, on 04.05.2023, he, along with his brother Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025), reached at Tehsil Haroli to get the Agreement to Sell executed. When, they reached there, after some time, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) also reached there. As per the terms and conditions, the Agreement to Sell was got prepared and he has provided the bank account number for depositing the amount. Consequently, Rs.18,00,000/- was agreed to be deposited in the bank account and the last date of execution of the Agreement to Sell was 05.07.2023. However, on the said date, land was not got redeemed. Due to this fact, date was extended till 15.09.2023. Meanwhile, the same was not got redeemed. As such, the last date was extended up to 15.11.2023. 11.3. It is the further case of the complainant that till 15.11.2023, accused persons could not get the land redeemed. When, the complainant had gone to the house of Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025), then, complainant found that he had already gone to abroad. Thereafter, wife of Sanjeev Kumar, namely Veena 7 2025:HHC:16995 Devi (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025), his brother Manoj Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1041 of 2025) and mother Raj Kumari (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1040 of 2025) had requested to extend the time up to 16.05.2023, regarding which, Agreement was executed on 16.12.2023. 11.4. It is the further case of the complainant that on 09.02.2025, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) forwarded a WhatsApp message, mentioning therein, that he will come back by or before 22.03.2025. 11.5. It is the further case of the complainant that after few days, the complainant came to know about Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) that he had already executed Agreement to Sell, regarding the land, with someone else. As such, a request has been made to take action against the applicants. 11.6. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 11.7. During the investigation, on 05.05.2025, complainant-Ashok Kumar produced the self-attested copies of the Agreements dated 04.05.2023, 03.07.2023, 15.09.2023 and 16.12.2023, which were taken into possession. 8 2025:HHC:16995 11.8. The self-attested copies of the Agreements were accepted by the police, as, according to the complainant, original have already been produced, before the Court at Una. 11.9. It is the further case of the police that applicant-Sanjeev Kumar had also executed the Agreement to Sell with one Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Gian Chand, R/o VPO Dulehar, Haroli and grabbed Rs.22,50,000/-, regarding which, FIR No.06/24 dated 18.04.2024, under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC has also been registered against Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) with Police Station Tahliwal, District Una. 12. On the basis of the above stand, vide order dated 07.05.2025, interim protection was given to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 16.05.2025. 13. On 16.05.2025, the supplementary status report was filed, apprehending that the applicants, although, joined the investigation, but, they are not disclosing anything about the amount, grabbed by them, nor, they are cooperating in the investigation. 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that in case, interim order is made absolute, the applicants may coerce the witnesses and may also affect 9 2025:HHC:16995 the investigation. On 16.05.2025, matter was adjourned for 23.05.2025. 15. On 23.05.2025, police filed the supplementary status report, taking the objection that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- is yet to be recovered, in this case and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for today. 16. In view of the stand, taken by the applicants, one thing is crystal clear that on the basis of the Agreement to Sell, the complainant has filed a civil suit, titled as ‘Ashok Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.’, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una. 17. The copy of the plaint has also been annexed with the application, perusal of which, demonstrates that the suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2023, which was extended on various dates, was filed by complainant-Ashok Kumar against the applicants and others. Meaning thereby, the bone of contention, between the parties, is civil dispute. 18. Moreover, the criminal proceedings cannot be equated with recovery proceedings. As such, the objection, which has been taken by the police that the recovery of 10 2025:HHC:16995 Rs.20,00,000/- has not yet been made, is not liable to be taken into consideration. 19. Even otherwise, the role, allegedly played by the applicants, will be proved, during the trial and when, the civil suit is pending adjudication, between the parties, then, the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 20. In the status report(s), filed before this Court, the police could not spell out as to how the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. 21. Furthermore, the applicants are permanent resident of District Una, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, interim order is made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 22. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled for the relief, as claimed, in the application. 23. Consequently, interim order, dated 07.05.2025, is made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No.71/2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, with Police Station Haroli, 11 2025:HHC:16995 District Una, H.P., subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 24. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 25. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 26. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application(s), in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by any of the applicants. 12 2025:HHC:16995 27. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case files i.e. CrMPs(M) No.1039 to 1041 of 2025. (Virender Singh) Judge May 30, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)