2025:HHC:21737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1268 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025. Nimat Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. M/s. N.K. Tomar and Rajidner Gulati, Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking reguarl bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner is required in F.I.R. No. 76 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2) 352, 119(2) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(i)(g) (r) (s) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:21737 Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act) at Police Bhuntar District Kullu, H.P. A civil suit is pending between the informant’s father and the petitioner’s father-in- law. The petitioner purchased the land in the year 2023 from Budh Ram. The land is jointly owned by Dine Ram. The petitioner and his wife were working on the land on 29.04.2025 when the informant Tikkam and Guddi Devi, wife of Dine Ram, came to the spot and attacked the petitioner and his wife. The matter was reported to the police, and F.I.R. No. 75 of 2025, dated 29.04.2025, was registered against the informant. The informant lodged a false F.I.R. against the petitioner as a counterblast to the FIR registered against him. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that he had a land dispute with Maan Singh. Informant’s father, Dine Ram, and his mother, Guddi Devi, were working in their field on 29.04.2025. Rakesh Thakur and his wife came to the spot with the tipper and started digging the land. The 3 2025:HHC:21737 informant requested them not to do so, but they abused him. The family members of Maan Chand also reached the spot. Rakesh Thakur inflicted a blow on the head of the informant’s mother. Hem Raj was pushed to the ground. They gave beatings to the informant and his family members. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. Dine Ram and Guddi Devi were medically examined, and simple injuries were found on their persons. The informant and his family members belong to scheduled caste. The police arrested the accused and released them under Section 35(3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Kushal Chand and Jiwa Nand were interrogated, and they revealed that no abuses were hurled and no person was beaten in their presence. The result of FSL is awaited. Hence, the status report. 3. A separate reply/objection (Cr.MP No. 2446 of 2025) was filed by Dine Ram/respondent No.2, asserting that the accused had committed a heinous crime and threatened the informant and his family members with dire consequences. The petitioner/accused damaged the agricultural land of the informant despite the issuance of the injunction order. The investigation is at the initial stage. Releasing the petitioner on 4 2025:HHC:21737 bail would adversely affect the investigation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder to the objections/reply denying the contents of the objections/reply was filed. 5. I have heard Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and M/S N.K. Tomar and Rajinder Gulati, Advocates for respondents No.2/complainant. 6. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated because of the land dispute. The police have completed the investigation, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State, submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. The co-accused has been released under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 8. Mr. Naresh Tomar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, submitted that the offences committed by 5 2025:HHC:21737 the petitioner are heinous and the petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:21737 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] .] 11. 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 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 7 2025:HHC:21737 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 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 8 2025:HHC:21737 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) 12. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 13. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. A perusal of the status report shows that Rakesh Thakur came to the site with a tipper and threatened to take possession. The other co-accused reached the spot and gave beatings to the informant’s party. The name of the petitioner is Nimat Ram, and his name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. It was also not mentioned that he had given beatings to any person. The police have already released the co-accused under Section 35(3) of BNSS, which shows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 15. The status report also shows that the petitioner had joined the investigation after he was granted interim bail by the Court. 9 2025:HHC:21737 16. It was submitted that the offence is heinous and the petitioner is likely to cause harm to the informant party. There is no averment that the petitioner had harmed any person after he was released on interim bail, and this apprehension is not justified. Moreover, this apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and does not justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court is made absolute. 18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 19. 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 8th July, 2025 (ravinder)