IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1424 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.07.2025 Date of decision: 10.07.2025 Jageer Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : M/s Sangram Singh and Parkshit Rathore, Advocates For the respondent/ State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) 2023 at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the victim left her home and called the petitioner from Chandigarh. The petitioner advised her to stay in a Gurudwara, and on the next day, he took her with him. The victim was recovered from the petitioner’s house at Ainokot (Punjab). The investigation has been completed. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that the victim was missing. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim was found in the house of the petitioner, Jagir Singh. She made a statement that she had left the home and gone to Chandigarh. She searched for a job but could not find any job. She called the petitioner, who advised her to stay in the Gurudwara. He took her with him on the next day. The SIM was kept by the petitioner with him. Her mobile phone was put into a bucket by the petitioner’s daughter-in-law and 3 thrown into the river. The victim was born on 1.4.2008 and was a minor on the date of the incident. The petitioner had kept the victim in his home. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner should not be released on bail. 4. I have heard M/s Sangram Singh Chandel and Prikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Prikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner helped the victim because she is his neighbour. She had left her home voluntarily after quarrelling with her father. The police have filed the charge sheet. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Prashant Sen, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner took the victim to his home, knowing that she was a minor and would be married to Pradeep. Hence, prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 96 of the BNS is made out. The offence 4 is heinous; 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, 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 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 5 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 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 legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 6 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 court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as 7 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. A perusal of the status report shows that the victim had left her home voluntarily after quarrelling with her father. She sought a job in Chandigarh but could not find any. She called the petitioner, who was her neighbour. The petitioner advised her to stay in a Gurudwara, and thereafter, on the next day, took her with him to his home. These facts, prima facie, do not show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 96 of BNS because the intention to take a child with such an intent that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse is missing. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner wanted the victim to marry Pardeep; hence, this fact would attract the provisions of Section 96 of the BNS. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report shows that the victim had called Pardeep, but Pardeep did not visit the petitioner’s house. He had only promised to visit by the 8th or within 15 days. There is nothing 8 that the marriage between the two was to be solemnized. Therefore, the mere fact that the victim had talked to Pardeep will not, prima facie, attract the provisions of Section 96 of BNS. 14. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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 9 (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. 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 petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kishanpura at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 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 10th July, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e22 5878f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec93937 5291962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce6 51f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-07-10 19:04:21 KARAN SINGH GULERIA