IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1331 of 2025 Reserved on : 04.07.2025 Decided on : 08.07.2025 Mohan Lal Sharma …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Applicant in person with Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Apprehending his arrest, in case, arising out of FIR No.10/2025 dated 13.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 182, 419, 193, 464, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma has filed the present 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. The relief, as claimed, in the application, has been sought on the ground that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in the above-noted case, whereas, according to him, he is Advocate by profession and happens to be a counsel in CWPIL No.56 of 2022, titled as ‘Gram Panchayat Old Manali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’, which was filed in this Court and later on, was withdrawn on 30.08.2022. 3.1. According to the applicant, in the said CWPIL, an application was filed by one private respondent, against whom, the allegations were levelled regarding the encroachment upon the Government land, by the petitioner and the said application was allowed on 08.09.2022 and subsequently, the FIR in question was registered. 3 4. It is the case of the applicant that the High Court has directed the respondents to investigate the matter, but, instead of carrying out the proper investigation, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manali had twisted the factual matrix of the case and implicated the applicant. 5. It is the further case of the applicant that he is having deep roots in the society. All these facts have been highlighted to show that he has falsely been implicated, in this case. 6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police of PS Manali/I.O., in this case. 7. Vide order dated 06.06.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed. 8. As per the status report, which has been filed on 06.06.2025, in CWPIL No.56 of 2022, direction was issued by the High Court to register the FIR and the said factual position 4 was entered in GD No.43 dated 12.10.2022. The complaint was filed by Monika Bharti, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Manali, who, along with other Panchayat Members, appeared before the police and stated that it has unanimously been decided in the Gram Panchayat that CWPIL No.56 of 2022 has not been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Manali, nor, there is any resolution in the Panchayat record, regarding filing of the said case. CWPIL No.56 of 2022 has not been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Manali, through its Pradhan and as such, by way of the resolution, a request has been made to Incharge, Police Station Manali to enquire the fact that who had filed the writ in the High Court in the name of Gram Panchayat, Manali and action may be taken against the said person. 8.1. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8.2. During investigation, on 17.01.2025, the record of the case, bearing CWPIL No.56 of 2022, titled as ‘Gram Panchayat Old Manali Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.’, was obtained from the Office of Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Those documents were received through post. 5 8.3. It is the case of the police that from the perusal of said documents, it was found that case, bearing CWPIL No.56 of 2022 was filed by Gram Panchayat Old Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P., Pradhan, namely Smt. Monika Bharti, through Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate (applicant), on 28.05.2022, whereas, on 30.08.2022, the said CWPIL was withdrawn by the petitioner, through the applicant. Subsequently, Sh. T.C. Banon has filed the affidavit in the High Court asserting the fact that Gram Panchayat, Manali, through its Pradhan Smt. Monika Bharti, had filed the false CWPIL, through her counsel, upon which, the High Court had directed to investigate the matter. 8.4. It is the further case of the police that on 18.01.2025, Pradhan Monika Bharti was associated in the investigation and her statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded, disclosing therein, that on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Manali, no CWPIL had ever been filed, nor, it was got filed and applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma had forged her signatures and filed the false CWPIL in the High Court. 8.5. It is the further case of the police that on 01.02.2025, the then Secretary, Gram Panchayat Manali Bal 6 Krishan was also associated in the investigation and his statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded, disclosing therein, that on behalf of the Gram Panchayat Manali, neither any CWPIL has been filed against TC Banon, nor any resolution authorizing to file the CWPIL has been passed in the Panchayat. 8.6. It is the further case of the police that on 19.01.2025, CDRs/Consumer Application Form (CAF) of Mobile Nos.94184-56036, 98160-23004, 70189-14365, 98822- 18518, 98161-55444, 94590-37388, 70183-58862, 98166- 37388, have been requested to be provided, to the Service Provider. In response to the said correspondence, Service Provider, through e-mail, had informed that the information more than 2 years is not available and as such, CDRs could not be provided. However, when, the CAF was obtained, then, it was found that Mobile No.94590-37388 has been issued in the name of Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate (applicant), Mobile No.98822-18519 has been issued in the name of Monika Bharti, Mobile No.70189-14365 has been issued in the name of Om Prakash, S/o Sh. Maan Dass and Mobile No.94184- 7 56036 has been issued in the name of Narayan Singh Verma, S/o Sh. Sahi Ram Verma. 8.7. It is the further case of the police that on 30.01.2025 and on 01.02.2025, Sh. T.C. Banon, S/o J.W. Banon was also associated in the investigation and his statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, was recorded. 8.8. On 18.02.2025, as per the police case, Roop Chand Negi was also associated in the investigation, who has got recorded in his statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, that he does not know Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate (applicant), nor, he had filed CWPIL in the High Court, against T.C. Banon. 8.9. It is the further case of the police that on 03.03.2025, Narayan Singh was also associated in the investigation, who has got recorded in the statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, showing his ignorance with regard to the filing of CWPIL No.56 of 2022 in the High Court. However, the applicant is stated to be known to him, as, he is resident of his Village and was his junior in university. They used to talk with each other on phone, in order to discuss their domestic problem. However, according to him, he had not requested Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) to file CWPIL No.56 of 2022. 8 8.10. It is the further case of the police that on 12.10.2023, Monika Bharti, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Manali had submitted the copy of the written resolution, passed by the Gram Panchayat, regarding non-filing of CWPIL in the High Court. The said factum was recorded in Rapat No.43 dated 12.10.2022. 8.11. As per the further case of the police, applicant- Mohan Lal Sharma was directed to join the investigation, but, despite repeated notices, Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) has not joined the investigation. 8.12. As per the CDRs, it was found that mobile No.70189-14365 of Pradhan Smt. Monika Bharti was found to have been used to call Shri Roop Chand Negi's mobile No.98160-23004 12 times from 23.08.2022 to 29.08.2022 and from mobile No.98822-18518 to Shri Roop Chand Negi's mobile number above mentioned 4 times from 23.06.2022 to 25.08.2022 and Smt. Monika Bharti was found to have talked to Advocate Mohan Sharma's (applicant) mobile No.70183- 58862 3 times on 24.08.2022 and 25.08.2022. Mr. Roop Chand Negi's mobile No.98160-23004 has been found to have been used to call to Mrs. Monika Bharti 12 times from 9 23.08.2022 to 29.08.2022 and Mr. Roop Chand Negi has been found to have been used to call to Advocate Mr. Mohan Sharma (applicant) on the above mentioned mobile number 5 times from 26.08.2022 to 30.08.2022, Mr. Narayan Singh Verma's mobile No.94184-56036 12 times from 21.06.2022 to 28.08.2022 and Mr. Gautam Nath's mobile No.98161-55444 has been found to have been used to call others 44 times from 16.06.2022 to 30.08.2022. Apart from Shri Roop Chand Negi, Shri Gautam Nath has been found to have two conversations with Shri Narayan Singh Verma on his mobile number on 06.08.2022 and 28.08.2022. 8.13. As per further case of the police, Monika Bharti, Roop Chand Verma, Gautam Nath were again enquired and on enquiry, Monika Bharti disclosed that on her name, Advocate Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) had filed false CWPIL No.56 of 2022, regarding this, she had talked to Roop Chand Negi, who had obtained the mobile number of Advocate Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) from the website of High Court and talked with Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) with regard to the filing of CWPIL and requested him to withdraw the same, as, the said CWPIL had not been filed by her. 10 8.14. It is the further case of the police that on 18.03.2025, specimen signatures of Monika Bharti were obtained. Thereafter, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Manali also produced the record from Gram Panchayat Manali, bearing signatures of Monika Bharti, which was also taken into possession. 8.15. Apart from this, the copies of CWPIL No.56 of 2022 were obtained from the High Court. Other relevant documents were also taken into possession. The report from RFSL, Dharmshala was obtained, which is reproduced, as under:- “The person, who wrote the blue enclosed signatures, stamped and marked as S-1 to S-14; A-1 to A-12 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as Q-1 and Q-2.” 8.16. These facts have been highlighted to show that Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) had either signed himself or got signed from someone else in CWPIL No.56 of 2022. Similarly, he had produced some other lady, before the Oath Commissioner and forged the signatures of Monika Bharti over the said CWPIL. The said CWPIL has been filed on the basis of forged documents and as such, Sections 465 and 471 of IPC and subsequently, Sections 193 and 464 of IPC have been added in this case. 11 8.17. It is the further case of the police that Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) has been requested to join the investigation by issuing the notices on various dates. However, despite issuance of notice, he has not joined the investigation. Thereafter, on 08.03.2025, applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma was contacted on his Mobile No.70183-58862 and he was informed to join the investigation on 10.03.2025. Again notice was given to him on 19.03.2025 to join the investigation. However, he had shown his inability on the ground that he is undergoing treatment at PGIMER Chandigarh, as well as, Mokta Orthopedic Clinic, Sanjauli. 8.18. Thereafter, on 01.04.2025, as per the direction of this Court, a request was made to Service Provider to provide the CDRs of Mobile No.70189-14365, 98822-18518, 70183- 58862, 98166-37388, 94590-37388, 98160-23004, 98161- 55444, 94184-56036. However, in response to the said correspondence, Service Provider has informed that record of CDR more than 2 years is not available with them. Consequently, on 01.04.2025, submissions were made, before the High Court, disclosing therein, that applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma is required to be interrogated as his specimen 12 signatures and specimen handwriting are to be obtained, upon which, the Court has directed that the applicant, as per the medical advice, may join at Manali and in case, he could not go there, then, he can be associated at Shimla. Consequently, applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma was informed on 01.04.2025 with a direction to join the investigation at Manali on 07.04.2025. 8.19. It is the further case of the police that on 04.04.2025, applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma, when contacted on his mobile number, disclosed to the IO that he cannot come to Manali and requested that in case, the investigation is required, he may be enquired at Shimla. Consequently, on 07.04.2025, he was directed to join the investigation at Police Station East Shimla, upon which, Mohan Lal Sharma (applicant) insisted that he will join the investigation in his Chamber No.442. Hence, he was associated in the investigation in Chamber No.442. He was apprised about the fact that his specimen signatures and specimen handwriting were to be obtained from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and he was requested to be presented in the said Court on 08.04.2025 at 11:00 am. However, on 13 08.04.2025, applicant-Mohan Lal Sharma had not put appearance from 11:00 am to 04:00 pm, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. Thereafter, the said application was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla, where, the applicant has refused to give his specimen signatures and handwriting by making statement there. Thereafter, the IO, as well as, applicant were directed to be present before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 09.04.2025. Again applicant has refused to give his specimen signatures and handwriting. 8.20. It is the further case of the police that on 09.04.2025, Oath Commissioner Smt. Manjula Kumari, was enquired and her statement was recorded disclosing therein, that on 15.06.2022, applicant Mohan Lal Sharma along with one lady came to her and at that time, there was lot of rush and she was attesting the affidavit of the petitioner in CWPIL, then, applicant Mohan Sharma has produced the affidavit for attestation, when the same was checked the signatures of the petitioner were not there, upon which, the said Oath Commissioner, has returned the said affidavit to applicant 14 with a request to get the signature of the petitioner over it. Thereafter, applicant Mohan Lal Sharma left Bar Room along with the said lady and after some time, came back with the affidavit having the signatures of the petitioners. However, the said lady was not with her. As per the Oath Commissioner, she don’t know the said lady, nor, she can identify her. 8.21. Applicant Mohan Lal Sharma has put his signatures over the affidavit as identifier of the petitioner. The applicant during investigation also disclosed to the police that on 15.06.2022 a lady wearing mask along with one person came to her disclosed her name as Monika Bharti and she had signed the CWPIL as petitioner, whereas, according to the police, mobile phone location of Monika Bharti on 15.06.2022 was found to be in Manali. As per the report of RFSL, the CWPIL does not bear the signature of Monika Bharti and applicant Mohan Lal Sharma instead of Monika Bharti produced some other lady before the Oath Commissioner. It has also been mentioned that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and also refused to give his handwriting and signatures. When the notice under Section 179 of BNSS were issued to him, he has given a written report that his 15 signatures and handwriting on CWPIL be treated as his signatures. Highlighting the fact that in the report of RFSL, Monika Bharti, has not signed in CWPIL, which has been filed in the name of Monika Bharti. 8.22. Lastly, it has been prayed that the applicant has not joined the investigation nor given the specimen signatures and handwriting and he has not disclosed about the fact that at whose instance, he has filed the CWPIL and who was paid his counsel fee and through which means. 8.23. On the basis of the said stand, the interim protection was given to the applicant on 06.06.2025 and the matter was adjourned for 20.06.2025. On that day, police filed the supplementary status report reasserting the facts, which have been mentioned in the earlier status report. However, the prayer for custodial interrogation of the applicant was made, on that day. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 27.06.2025 and on that day, the police filed the supplementary status report disclosing therein that on 10.06.2025, notice under Section 179 of BNSS was given to the applicant, upon which, he has joined the investigation on 12.06.2025. However, according to the status report, the applicant has not 16 disclosed the fact that on 03.06.2022, on whose instance, the CWPIL, was filed and who is the person, who has provided the documents for the same. He has also not disclosed that to whom he had produced as Monika Bharti before Oath Commissioner on 15.06.2022. He was directed to join the investigation on 16.06.2025 but, on that day, he has not appeared before the police. On 23.06.2025, the status report of the case was produced before the Principal Division Bench of the High Court, where the Court had directed that the specimen signatures and handwriting of the applicant be obtained before Registrar (Judicial). Thereafter, the applicant was enquired and his specimen signatures and handwriting was obtained which was sent to RFSL Dharamshala on 25.06.2025. 8.24. Reiterating the fact that the applicant was directed to join the investigation on 25.06.2025, he has not joined the investigation nor disclosing the fact that who was the person who had provided him, the documents for filing the CWPIL No.56 of 2022, It is the case of the police that in order to ascertain those facts, as per the status report, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Thereafter, the 17 matter has been adjourned for 04.07.2025. On that day, police has filed the supplementary status report mentioning therein, that the applicant was directed to join the investigation at Manali on 29.06.2025, upon which, he has joined the investigation. During the investigation, as per the status report, the applicant has disclosed that he does not remember the fact that who had given the documents to him for preparing CWPIL nor he has disclosed about the person who allegedly paid the fee to him. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10. In nut shall the allegations against the applicant, as per the status report, which has been filed before this Court is that CWPIL No.56 of 2022 has been filed before this Court in the name of Monika Bharti, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Old Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P., whereas, it is the stand of complainant Monika Bharti that neither she has filed the said CWPIL nor any resolution in this regard has been passed by the Gram Panchayat. The main objection of the State in this case is that the applicant has concealed the material facts and not cooperating with the investigation. 18 11.. In this case, the applicant has joined the investigation, his specimen signatures and handwriting have been obtained, as such, role attributed to the applicant in the crime in question would be proved during the trial. 12. So far as the objection of the State to reject the application on the ground that the applicant has not disclosed the material facts, as to who had engaged him for filing CWPIL and who had paid the counsel fee is concerned, the applicant cannot be compelled to be the witness against himself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah versus Kamal Dayani & others, (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 753, has held that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refused to confess to the crime is another matter. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, are reproduced as under:- “43. We are of the firm opinion that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused 19 before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.” 13. Moreover, the accused is deemed to have been in judicial custody in case, of discovery of fact as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- 43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of 20 the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code. 14. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under:- 92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.” 15. In this case the police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation. 16. Considering the fact that the applicant is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, as, such, it cannot 21 be apprehended that in case, interim order is made absolute, the applicant may not be available for the trial. 17. Consequently, interim order, dated 06.06.2025 passed in the application, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in case arising out of FIR No.10 of 2025, dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections 182, 419, 193, 464, 465 & 471 of IPC, with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., subject to his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 18. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and 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 the appropriate applications; 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 22 d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 19. 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 bail application. 20. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by any of the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 08, 2025 ( subhash )