2025:HHC:23686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1386 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025. Dharam Pal ...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. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR 30 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024, registered at Police Station Arki, Distt. Solan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504,506, and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2025:HHC:23686 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2024. The charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner will attend the hearing and will not influence any witness. He would abide by 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 father of the deceased made a complaint to the police that the deceased was being harassed by her husband and his relatives. She was not being provided with any maintenance. Her father-in-law, Amar Chand, her mother-in-law, Banti Devi, brother-in-law, Jagdish, and his wife, Jai Dei, used to harass the deceased. They turned the deceased out of her matrimonial home. Her father-in- law had beaten the deceased three to four times. She was left in her paternal home on 29.02.2024 by her husband. He assured the deceased that he would take her after four to five days, but when the deceased called her husband, he told her that he would not take her with him. He also asked the deceased to commit suicide, and he would marry again. The deceased attempted to commit suicide due to harassment by her husband and his relatives. The police registered the 2025:HHC:23686 F.I.R. The deceased was discharged from PGI, and she made a statement on 05.08.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P., complaining about the harassment by her husband and his family members. She subsequently succumbed to her injuries, and Section 306 of the IPC was added. It was found after an investigation that Amar Chand, the father-in-law and Dharampal, husband of the deceased, used to beat her. Her brother-in-law, Jagdish, her sister-in-law, Jai Dei and mother-in-law Banti Devi, also used to harass her physically and mentally. They did not provide any food to her. They used to demand dowry, and when the deceased was unable to meet this demand, they used to beat her. Once Amar Chand, the father-in-law of the deceased, demanded a fridge, but she could not provide the fridge. He asked the informant to provide an old fridge as per his capacity. The deceased had asked her husband to take her with him, but he declined and asked her to commit suicide. Bimla Devi and Uma Devi, the neighbours of the deceased, have supported the version regarding the harassment of the deceased. The police filed the charge sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki on 11.11.2024. The matter was listed before the learned Special Judge (II), Solan on 25.06.2025. Banti Devi and Jai Dei were released by this 2025:HHC:23686 Court, whereas Amar Chand and Jagdish were released by the learned Sessions Judge (II), Solan Camp at Arki. No case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent- State. 5. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The deceased left her matrimonial home and committed suicide in her parental home. There is no proximity between the act of the petitioner and the commission of the suicide. The co-accused have been released on bail by this Court or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Solan. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 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 had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He repeatedly gave her beatings, and she was left with no option but to commit suicide. The fact that the victim had left her matrimonial home does not mean that the acts of 2025:HHC:23686 the petitioner were not responsible for the commission of the suicide; 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, how 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 2025:HHC:23686 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 witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted 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 2025:HHC:23686 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 a bail application 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 2025:HHC:23686 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 co-accused Amar Chand, Jagdish, Banto Devi and Jai Dei have been released on bail by this Court or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Solan. The status report shows that all the persons had given beatings to the deceased. The additional circumstance against the petitioner is that he had told the deceased that she should die and he would remarry, but this fact by itself is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the abetment of suicide, keeping in view the time elapsed between the incident and the suicide. His role cannot be separated from the other persons. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to 2025:HHC:23686 his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact 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 or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 14. 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. 2025:HHC:23686 15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Modern Central Jail, Kanda, District, Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 17. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd July, 2025 (veena ) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.22 17:19:17 IST