2025:HHC:24263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.: 1377 & 1378 of 2025 Reserved on      : 17 th    July, 2025 Decided on        :       25 th   Ju ly , 2025 1. Cr.MP (M) No. 1377 of 2025 Sanjeev Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 2. Cr.MP (M) No. 1378 of 2025 Krishna Devi …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s)   : Mr. Vijay   Kumar   Arora,   Senior Advocate   with   Mr. Gaurav   Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates. For the respondent   : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate   General,   assisted   by   ASI Vinay   Kumar,   Police   Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:24263 Virender Singh, Judge The above titled applications, are being decided by a common order, as t he applicants have filed these applications,  under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), as they are apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.103 of   2025,   dated   10.06.2025,   registered,   under   Sections 308(5),  351(2),  115(2),   61(2)   of   the   Bharatiya   Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu. 2. By way of the present applications, indulgence of   this   Court   has   been   sought  to   direct   the   Police/ Investigating   Officer   of   Police   Station   Bhuntar,   District Kullu, H.P., to release the applicants on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above noted case. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated by the Police, in this case, 4. As   per   the   applicants,   they   are   from   a respectable   families   and   are   having   deep   roots   in   the society. 3 2025:HHC:24263 5. It   is   the   case   of   the   applicants,   that   when applicant   Krishna   Devi,   on   4.6.2025,   after   attending   a business   meeting,   her   car   was   intercepted   by   the complainant and he become abusive and physically violent towards   applicant   Krishna   Devi   in   public,   whereas, applicant   Sanjeev   Kumar,   being   driver,   intervened   to prevent bodily harm to a woman. 6. According   to   the   applicants,   the   complainant was hostile against them and in order to wreck vengeance, had lodged the FIR against them with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate them. The applicants had further pleaded that they have no concern whatsoever, with the crime, in question. 7. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Vijay Kumar   Arora,   learned   Senior   Advocate   assisted   by   Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates, has given certain undertakings, for which,  the applicants are ready to abide by, in case any direction is issued to the police/ Investigating Officer, in the above­noted case, under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS. 4 2025:HHC:24263 8. On the basis of the above facts, the police was directed to file the status report. Consequently, the police has   filed   the   status   report,   on   17.06.2025,   disclosing therein, that on 10.06.2025, a zero FIR was received from Police Station, Sarkaghat, which was forwarded to Police Station Bhuntar. The zero FIR, reveals the following facts:­ 8.1. That   on   10.06.2025,   at   about   11.00   a.m., complainant Rakesh Verma, received a phone call and the caller   disclosed   her   name   as   Krishna   Pujari,   who   has called   him   to   her   house,   on   the   pretext   of   helping   the complainant to purchase land. 8.2. Consequently, the complainant reached at the house of said Krishna, who offered him water. After ten minutes, one person came there and objected as to what he is doing in her residence, when the woman is all alone. The said person clicked his photographs and started giving beatings to him. Not only this, he has snatched the golden chain and two rings, as well as, Rs.12,000/­, in cash from complainant. 8.3. According to the complainant, Krishna Pujari used to call him on mobile phone No.98170­35000. He has 5 2025:HHC:24263 further got recorded that since, he has not sustained any injuries,   as   such,   he   does   not   want   his   medico­legal examination. According to him, the incident had taken place at Pahnala. 8.4. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   the   police registered the zero FIR. 8.5. Since, the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bhuntar, as such, the FIR was forwarded for further action, upon which, the police registered   the   FIR   in   question   and   further   investigation was entrusted to HC Tilak Raj, who visited the spot and prepared the spot map. 9. During   investigation,   complainant   Rakesh Verma has disclosed that on 10.06.2025, at about 11.00 a.m.,   he   received   a   whatsApp   call   from   mobile   phone No.98179­35000   on   his   mobile   number   94180­45051. Since the complainant was on his way to visit the orchard, as such, Krishna Pujari, after making audio call, shown him the passage. When, he reached at her house, Krishna Pujari, firstly, took him to her bed room, where water was offered to him. Meanwhile, another person came there. 6 2025:HHC:24263 10. The complainant does not know his name, but, he can identify him, who has objected his presence, by saying as to what was he doing there, when a woman was residing   all   alone. Thereafter,   the   said   person   has snatched away the golden chain, golden rings, along with currency notes of Rs.12,000/­, from him. 11. Thereafter, Krishna Pujari allegedly took him to other bed room. The complainant was made to sit on the chair and Krishna Pujari allegedly told to the complainant that she will return the articles and request him to leave the spot. Thereafter, the complainant came back. He was perplexed, as such, he has got recorded his report at Police Station Sarkaghat. 12. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   the   police added   Sections   308(5),   351(2)   and   61(2)   and   deleted Section 134 of the BNS. 13. As  per  the   status  report,   the  following   cases were   found   to   have   been   registered   against   applicant Krishna Devi:­ i) FIR No. 27 of 2014, dated 01.02.2014, under Sections 353, 457, 323, 332, 34 of the IPC; 7 2025:HHC:24263 ii) FIR No. 180 of 2015, dated 26.11.2015, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC; iii) FIR No. 52 of 2016, dated 08.04.2016, under Sections 341, 323, 397, 392, 326, 506, 34 of the IPC; iv) FIR No. 271 of 2020, dated 06.10.2020, under Sections 341, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC; v) FIR No. 298 of 2020, dated 21.11.2020, under Sections 364­A, 342, 388, 506, 323, 120­B of the IPC; vi) FIR No.305 of 2020, dated 02.12.2014, under Sections 342, 323, 364A, 388, 504, 506, 120­B of the IPC; vii) FIR No. 96 of 2021, dated 30.05.2021, under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 365, 212,  188, 384, 34 of the IPC & 39 of H.P. Excise Act; viii) FIR   No.24   of   2022,   dated   11.02.2022,   under Sections 376, 323 of the IPC; ix) FIR No.223 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024, under Sections 140(3), 351(2), 352, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS; 14. After perusing the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicants and the matter was adjourned for 24.06.2025. 15. In   the   status   report   filed   on   24.06.2025,   a specific stand has been taken that the accused persons are not cooperating with the investigation. Highlighting the 8 2025:HHC:24263 fact   that   cases   against   applicant   Krishna   for   similar offences have also been registered, it is the case of the police that due to their act,  there is fear and tension in the area. 16. After   registration   of   the   FIR,   against   the applicants, other persons have also tried to contact the police. This fact has been pleaded to show that applicant Krishna had done similar act with other persons  also, who were not making the complaints, to avoid themselves from public humiliation. The said persons are also associated in the investigation. 17. According to the police, applicants have not got recovered anything and the investigation is going on. 18. On 1.7.2025, the police filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that the applicants have not got recovered two rings, as well as Rs.12,000/­. Thereafter, the   matter   was   adjourned   for   4.7.2025   and   then   for 11.07.2025. 19. On   11.07.2025,   the   police   filed   the supplementary  status report, disclosing therein, that on 9.7.2025, complainant Rakesh Verma, along with Kuldheer 9 2025:HHC:24263 Singh   son   of   Hem   Singh   came   to   the   police   and   got recorded   his   statement,   disclosing   therein,   that   on 6.6.2025, Sanjeev Kumar and Krishna Devi called him to visit   their   orchard   and   Krishna   Devi   had   taken   away Rs.2,40,000/­, which were kept in the vehicle and Sanjeev Kumar,   got   transferred   Rs.5,000/­   through   mobile scanner. 20. Again   a   stand   has   been   taken   that   the applicants are not getting the recovery effected. Thereafter, the   matter   was   adjourned   to   17th  July,   2025. On 17.7.2025, similar stand has been taken by the police. 21. In the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the applications. 22. The applicants have joined the investigation and they   have   also   been   associated   in   the   investigation. However, according to the police, they are not getting the recovery effected regarding the golden chain, golden rings, and currency of Rs.12,000/­. 23. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery effected from the applicants as,  in view of the decision of 10 2025:HHC:24263 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if a discovery is to be made. 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,   on   the whole, have worked satisfactorily, 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   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. 11 2025:HHC:24263 24. 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.” 25. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail applications, has been opposed mainly on the ground that applicants are not getting the recovery effected.   The alleged refusal/non­cooperation of the applicants, to the considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground 12 2025:HHC:24263 for   dismissal   of   the   applications,   as   no   one   can   be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 26. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme   Court   in  Tusharbhai   Rajnikantbhai   Shah versus  Kamal   Dayani   &   Others,   (2025)   1   Supreme Court Cases 753, the applicants are entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the applications.  Relevant paragraph 43 of 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 before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence  and  cannot  even form  a  part  of  the record.” 27. In   this   case,   as   per   the   status   reports,   nine cases have been found to be registered against applicant Krishna Devi. Admittedly, in none of the cases, conviction has been inflicted by the competent Court of law nor she 13 2025:HHC:24263 has   been   declared   as   habitual   offender,   as   per   the provisions of law. As such, merely, on the basis of the registration of the other cases, adverse inference cannot be drawn against applicant Krishna Devi. 28. The   applicants   are   permanent   residents   of District Kullu, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case the interim order is made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 29. The role attributed to the applicants would be proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be nothing,   but   pre­trial   punishment,   which   is   prohibited under the law. 30. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicants, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present applications, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicants. 31. Considering all these facts, the interim  orders dated 17.06.2025, passed by this Court, in both the cases, are hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the 14 2025:HHC:24263 applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No.103 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered, under Sections 308(5) 351(2), 115(2), and 61(2) of the BNS, on   their   furnishing   personal   bonds,   in   the   sum   of 5 ₹ 0,000/­ each, with two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a)  That the applicants will join the investigation of the   case,   as   and   when,   called   for,   by   the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b)  That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants 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 applicants 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. 32. 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. 15 2025:HHC:24263 33. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the   bail   conditions,   is   found   violated   by   any   of   the applicants. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 25, 2025 (ps)