( 2025:HHC:19162 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1294 and 1295 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.06.2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025. 1. Cr. MP(M) No.1294 of 2025 Umesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr. MP(M) No.1295 of 2025 Tara Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 N0 For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra and Bhairav Gupta, Karan Kapoor, Advocates in both the petitions. For the Respondent/State :Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Both the petitions have been filed for seeking regular bail in the same FIR; hence, these are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at Police Station West, Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”). 3. It has been asserted that the petitioners are innocent and were falsely implicated. Co-accused Ram Lal, Sushil, Om Prakash, Harish, Ram Chand, Bhanu, Rajesh, Lakshay, Nitin and Nikhlesh were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No.8545-8549/2024 on 23.09.2024 and SLP Criminal No.8792-8796/2024 on 16.10.2024. This Court granted regular bail to Vinay Sharma in Cr.MP(M) No.2765 of 2024 on 31.01.2025. Shankar Lal, Ashish, Hemant, Rajiv Sharma and Geeta Ram were granted regular bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos.217, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of 2025 on 10.04.2025. Rajiv Sharma was granted bail 3 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No.6348/2025 on 21.05.2025. The petitioners are also placed on the same footing and are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. They would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petitions. 4. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on 1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand in Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam Chand had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her home on a bus. She told Sewa Nand that she would call him after getting off the bus, however, she could not call him back, as she was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son, Med Ram, about the call. The police also called her and inquired whether she had authorised any person to burn the dead body, to which she replied in the negative. Med Ram went to the village and found that the dead body of Tikam Chand had been burned by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with 4 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) ₹5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered that Tikkam Chand had committed a theft in a temple, and the villagers had beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR. It was found that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on 21.3.2024 that police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police called Rajiv Sharma, who said that one person had lit a fire near the temple. He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being taken to the police post. The police waited for the person, but nobody came to the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv Sharma in the morning, and he said that the person had been sent to his home. Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70 metres. from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand. Tara Chand informed other villagers, who were present near Sheetla Mata Temple, about the death of Tikkam Chand. The villagers gathered in the house of Ward Member Jagdish Chand. He called Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the members of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by Tikkam Chand. They also said that Tikkam Chand was sent to his home. He was heavily intoxicated, and fell in a state of intoxication. Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved the samples. 5 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The call details were also checked, and the persons were found in touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv Sharma, Vinay Sharma, Ashish and Hemant saw that Sheetla Mata Temple was set on fire on 21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went to the temple and found Tikkam Chand setting the temple on fire. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about this fact. Rajiv Sharma told Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Ram Lal, Rajesh, Jagdish, Harish, etc., about the incident. They reached the temple and gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tikkam Chand revealed that Rahul was also involved in the theft. He was brought from his home by Ram Lal, Umesh, Bhanu, Nikhilesh, Nikhil, Nitin, Lakshay and Jagdish Chand. They gave beatings to Rahul. Rahul also saw Tikkam Chand lying on the floor. His head and face were bleeding. Rajiv, Hemant, Ashish, Vinay, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Harish and Sushil were present, and they gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The villagers also took their 6 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) photographs and prepared the video. Subsequently, Tikkam Chand died, and his dead body was burned. The police arrested Vinay, Ashish, Shankar Lal, Geeta Ram, Rajiv Sharma and Tara Chand. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, Tikkam Chand could have died due to beatings given with a stick recovered by the police. It was found that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste; hence, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added. As per the investigation conducted by the police, Vinay Sharma, Hemant, Rajiv, and Ashish reached the complex of Sheetla Mata Temple on 21.3.2024 after noticing the fire. They caught hold of Tikam Chand. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about the apprehension of the thief. Accused Tara Chand, Shankar Lal and Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven persons gave beatings to Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Harish Kumar noticed bleeding injuries suffered by Tikam Chand. Rahul saw Tikam Chand lying near the Hawan Kund. He noticed the petitioners and other accused persons. Tara Chand, Rajiv and other persons gave beatings to Rahul. The report from FSL has been received. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime. They had given 7 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) beatings to Tikam Chand, which led to his death. They had cremated the dead body and destroyed the evidence. The photographs of Tikam Chand and Rahul were found in the mobile phone of Vinay. The petitioners are involved in a heinous offence. They can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail; therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Bhairav Gupta and Karan Kapoor, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 6. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and were falsely implicated. The co-accused have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. The petitioners are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 7. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of a heinous crime, which is 8 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) punished with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. 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 as under 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 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 9 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) 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] .] 10. 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 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 10 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) 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 similar other considerations. A criminal 11 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) 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) 11. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 12. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in SLP Criminal No.6348/2025 that the co-accused Rajiv Sharma had undergone incarceration for more than one year and one month, and the other co-accused have been granted anticipatory or regular bail. The charge was not framed; therefore, the co-accused Rajiv Sharma was entitled to bail on the principle of parity. As per the status report, Rajiv Sharma had inflicted injuries on the deceased. The status report also shows that Umesh and Tara Chand had also kicked the deceased with Rajiv Sharma; therefore, the role attributed to the petitioners and the co-accused Rajiv Sharma is the same. Since the co-accused Rajiv Sharma has been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to the delay in trial and the fact that the other co-accused had been released on bail, 12 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 14. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 15. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against them and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioners will not leave their present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the addresses of their intended visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioners will surrender their passport(s), if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number(s) and social media contacts 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(s) or social media 13 ( 2025:HHC:19162 ) accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 16. 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. 17. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. 18. 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 (rupsi)