Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1113 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.06.2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025. Mohit Kumar ...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. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 43/2025 dated 26.03.2025, registered at Police Station Dhalli, Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections, 109, 115(2), and 126(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that the informant made a complaint that Mohit Kumar-petitioner and Sunil Kumar had beaten him. The allegations are false. The investigation is complete. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) required. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family, and there is no one to look after his family members. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 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 stating that he went to his room on 25.03.2025 at about 6:00 pm to drop off the articles belonging to Rajinder. Sunil and Mohit were consuming liquor in the room. The informant left the articles in the room and came out. However, Rajinder called him and told him to keep the articles in his (informant) room. The informant went inside the room; however, Sunil and Mohit did not permit him to pick up the articles. The informant, called Rajinder and told him that he was not being allowed to take away the articles. Sunil and Mohit caught him by the neck and gave him beatings. He shouted for help. Sanjay came to the spot and rescued him. The informant sustained injuries in the incident. The police registered the FIR. The victim was taken to IGMC, Shimla, from where he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. A notice was served upon Sunil and Mohit to join the investigation; however, 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) they did not abide by the terms and conditions of the notice and ran away from the spot. They were apprehended near Kalka and were brought to Shoghi, where they were interrogated and arrested on 26.03.2025 at 5:35 pm. The informant/victim remained admitted to PGI, Chandigarh. He had sustained an injury to the head, which was dangerous to life. The challan has been prepared and is under scrutiny. The petitioner would abscond in case of his release on bail. The certificate of identity has been sent to the police station; however, the same has not been received so far. 4. I have heard Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family, and his family members are suffering from his detention. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner and co-accused had given beatings to the informant/victim. The Medical Officer stated that the injuries were dangerous to life. The notice was served upon the petitioner, but he and the accused ran away instead of complying with the conditions of the notice. The certificate of identity has not been received, and the address of the petitioner has not been verified. The petitioner is likely to abscond 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 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) 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] .] 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) 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) 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) 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) 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. The status report shows that the petitioner and the co- accused gave beatings to the informant, and he sustained injuries to the head, which were stated to be grievous by the Medical Officer. The part of the body where the injuries were inflicted and the opinion of the Medical Officer, prima facie, show that a case for 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19166 ) a commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS is made out against the petitioner. 13. It was specifically stated in the status report that a notice was served upon the petitioner, but he ran away instead of complying with the notice. The petitioner and the co-accused were apprehended at Kalka. The petitioner’s conduct prima facie shows that his presence cannot be secured during the trial. Further, the certificate of identity has not been received after verification, and it is difficult to say that the petitioner has a permanent address where he can be located during the trial. These considerations will disentitle the petitioner from the concession of bail. 14. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 15. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st June, 2025 (saurav pathania)