2025:HHC:16490 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1032 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025. Jagdish Chand Sharma ...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. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, with HC Ravi Bansal, No.5, Police Station West, District Shimla, 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 vide FIR No. 44 of 2025, dated 12.03.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(b), 351(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). As per the prosecution's case, the informant saw her husband (the victim) sitting in the shop of the accused on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16490 28.2.2025, at about 6.00 PM. He was bleeding from the head. She asked her husband as to how he had sustained injuries, he replied that the accused had given him beatings with kicks, fists and a shoe by saying that he (the victim) had stolen oil from the petitioner’s shop. The informant brought the victim to her home. His condition deteriorated, and he was taken to IGMC, Shimla. The police were informed, and an FIR was registered. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.3.2025. The informant’s husband was under the influence of liquor on the date of the incident. The informant made a false story regarding the incident. No complaint was registered on 28.2.2025. The prosecution's case that the petitioner had given beatings to the deceased is highly suspicious. The investigation is complete. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on 12.2.2024 stating that her husband, Alexander, was working as a labourer. She returned to her home on 28.2.2025, at about 6.00 PM. She found her husband sitting near the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner told the informant that her husband had stolen the 3 2025:HHC:16490 oil from the shop, and the informant should pay the cost of the oil. She inquired from her husband, who revealed that the petitioner had stopped him near the shop and gave him beatings by saying that he (the victim) had stolen the oil from the petitioner’s shop. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The injured was medically examined and, as per the medical evidence, the injuries were dangerous to life and the patient could have died in the absence of institutionalised treatment in the hospital. The police arrested the petitioner and interrogated him. The petitioner got the shoe recovered with which he had beaten the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded by learned Magistrate. The charge sheet is to be prepared and filed before the Court. The investigation is continuing, and the petitioner can influence the investigation in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4 2025:HHC:16490 4. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The testimonies of the informant and victim are not supported by any other witnesses. The police specifically mentioned in the status report that many people were present in the vicinity, but the statement of any witness was not recorded by the police. The CCTV footage was also not seized. The petitioner had no intention to commit murder. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the heinous offence. He 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 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 5 2025:HHC:16490 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 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 6 2025:HHC:16490 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 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 had beaten the victim, who sustained multiple injuries on various parts of the body. The petitioner got the shoe recovered with which he had 7 2025:HHC:16490 beaten the victim. The victim also stated before the learned Magistrate that the petitioner had mercilessly beaten him and kicked him like a football. The victim sustained grievous injuries to his head, which were likely to cause death in the case of non- treatment. These circumstances prima facie make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS. The offence is heinous and punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years. Considering the nature of the offence and severity of the punishment, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. It was submitted that the petitioner had no intention to cause grievous hurt to the victim. This submission will not help the petitioner. Everyone is presumed to know the consequences of their acts2. Kicking a person repeatedly on the head with a hard- soled shoe can prima facie lead to the conclusion that the petitioner intended to cause grievous injury to the victim. Therefore, the plea that the petitioner had no intention of causing hurt to the victim cannot be accepted. 11. The status report shows that the investigation is at the initial stage, hence, the plea that the petitioner is likely to influence the investigation has to be accepted as correct. 2 Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488 followed in N. Ramkumar v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1129 8 2025:HHC:16490 Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 12. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 13. 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 (Chander)