1 2025:HHC:21512 2025:HHC:21512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1322 of 2025 Reserved on : 4.7.2025 Decided on : 7.7.2025 Ritesh Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Applicant in person with Mr N.K. Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) in case, FIR No. 113 of 2024, dated 1.12.2024, registered under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 316 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2 2025:HHC:21512 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS”), with Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. 2. By way of present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case, as, he is apprehending his arrest, in the said case. 3. According to the case set up in the application, in the year 2022, applicant, in order to earn his livelihood, had started working as labourer with a Government Contractor, who was constructing a road near Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, H.P. 4. The applicant is stated to have worked as labourer from April, 2022 to October, 2022 and thereafter, he had left the job. During his employment as labourer, he was also given the work of loading and unloading the vehicle. He had obtained the driving license, in the month of October, 2024. 5. All these facts have been pleaded to show that at the relevant time, he was not having any driving 3 2025:HHC:21512 license and stand of the complaint regarding entrusting of the vehicle to him, is nothing, but a concocted story. 6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS. 7. On the basis of above facts, applicant has sought the relief, as claimed in the present bail application. 8. When, put to notice, the Police has filed status report, disclosing therein that on 1.12.2024, complainant Naresh K. Vij, S/o Babu Ram Vij, moved a complaint, before the Police, disclosing therein that his driver Ritesh Thakur, who was driving his vehicle No. HP-07C- 2412, is absconding since December, 2023 and despite of his efforts to contact him, he could not be contacted. The complainant is apprehending that the aforesaid person might have sold his vehicle. 4 2025:HHC:21512 8.1 On the basis of above facts, he has requested to lodge the FIR against the aforesaid person and to recover the vehicle, upon which, the Police registered the case, under Section 316 (2) of BNS and investigation was entrusted to HC Dharam Chand, I.O., P.P. Chail. 8.2 As per the complainant, in the month of December, 2023, the applicant was found absconding, alongwith the vehicle No. HP-07C-2412. It has been apprehended by the complainant that Ritesh Thakur (applicant) might have sold the said vehicle. As such, Section 316 (2) of BNS was deleted and Section 407 of IPC was added. 8.3 During investigation, complainant produced the certificate of Ritesh Kumar (applicant), payment voucher, insurance and fitness certificate of the vehicle, before the Police, which were taken into possession. The vehicle was found to be registered, in the name of complainant. 8.4 Applicant Ritesh Kumar was searched, upon which, his father has disclosed that his son (applicant Ritesh Kumar) is presently working with a Contractor, namely Tapender Sharma in Rajasthan. Thereafter, Tapender 5 2025:HHC:21512 Sharma was contacted on his mobile phone, and the applicant was apprised about the factual position of the matter, through the mobile phone of Tapender Sharma. Applicant was also directed to join the investigation. Despite the repeated assurances given by the contractor, applicant did not join the investigation. 8.5 On the basis of above facts, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 20.6.2025. 9 Thereafter, on 27.6.2025, the Police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein that on 17.6.2025, applicant had joined the investigation. As per the supplementary status report, filed on 27.6.2025, the applicant, during investigation, disclosed that he was employed as Driver, in the aforesaid vehicle by the complainant, in the month of July 2023. The complainant had allegedly made the payment for the month of July. Thereafter, three months’ salary was withheld. 9.1 It is the further case of the Police that the accused has also disclosed that on 2.12.2023, father of the applicant informed him that his mother is ill and serious and 6 2025:HHC:21512 apprised him that for her treatment, the money is required. This fact was brought to the notice of the complainant and Work Supervisor, Rajeev Soni, and they were requested to pay him three months’ salary, which was withheld by them. According to his further revelations to the Police, both the aforesaid persons did not pay any heed to his requests, nor any payment was made to him. Thereafter, he is stated to have made efforts for arranging the money from his friends and relatives, but he could not make the arrangement. As such, he has decided to sell the aforesaid vehicle in scrap, to recover the amount of his salary. 9.2 On 3.12.2023, he is stated to have taken away the vehicle to Shunnu Bhuira, and on 4.12.2023, he has sold the vehicle to one Vijay Kumar, for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. 9.3 During investigation, disclosure statement of the applicant was also recorded, in which, he has stated that he can identify the place, from where, he had taken away the vehicle and the place, where he had sold the same. Consequently, he had identified the said place and spot map was prepared by the Police. 7 2025:HHC:21512 9.4. In the status report, filed on 4.7.2025, it has been mentioned that on 29.6.2025, Vijay Kumar was also associated in the investigation, who has disclosed that on 4.12.2023, applicant Ritesh had sold vehicle No. HP-07C- 2412, to him, for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- He has further disclosed that an amount of Rs. 27,000/- has been paid to the applicant, and remaining amount has yet not been paid. Thereafter, he has destroyed the vehicle, after cutting the same into pieces and sold the same to Rakesh Sharma at Ochhghat. 9.5. Rakesh Sharma was also associated in the investigation, who allegedly disclosed that he has purchased the parts of the vehicle, for a sum of Rs. 48,000/-. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar was also arrested. 10. On the basis of the stand taken in the status report, by the Police, the learned Addl. A.G., appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled for relief of bail, as claimed in the petition, as he has committed a heinous crime, and as such, a request has been made to dismiss the application. 8 2025:HHC:21512 11. The Police, in this case, could not make out a case for custodial interrogation of the applicant. The stand taken by the Police, in the status report, that the co-accused of the applicant, has also been arrested, is not sufficient to decline the relief, as claimed, to the applicant, for which, he is otherwise entitled for. 12. As per the complainant, the alleged incident had taken place, in the month of December, 2023, whereas, the FIR was registered after 11 months, i.e. on 1.12.2024. Although, it is the prerogative of the prosecution to explain the delay in lodging the FIR, yet, while deciding the application, the said fact cannot be ignored. 13. The ground taken by the Police, in the status report, that the statement of payment of salary of applicant from the Co-operative Banki is required to be obtained, is too short to conclude that the applicant is not able to make out a case, in his favour. 14. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the interim order dated 6.6.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be 9 2025:HHC:21512 released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.113 of 2024, dated 1.12.2024, registered with Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant 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) That the applicant shall 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 appropriate application. 15. 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 applications. 10 2025:HHC:21512 16. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. (Virender Singh) Judge July 7, 2025 Kalpana