( 2025:HHC:22339 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1425 of 2025 Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Date of Decision: 10.07.2025. Gurjant 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 : Mr. Parikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. ASI Mahesh Kumar, I.O PS Nalagarh, District Baddi, present with police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2025, dated 1.5.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) and 238 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) 2. It has been asserted that the victim’s father made a complaint to the police that she was missing from her home. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police associated Jageer Singh and his son Pardeep during the investigation. Pardeep made a disclosure statement, and the victim was recovered from Ainokot (Punjab). The victim refused to undergo a medical examination. The police arrested the petitioner on 09.05.2025. Investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Gurdaspur (Punjab), and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, 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 found missing. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim was found in the house of 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 her neighbour, who advised her to stay in the Gurudwara. He took her with him on the next day. The SIM was 3 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) kept by the neighbour with him. Her mobile phone was put into a bucket by the petitioner’s wife and 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. He failed to produce the mobile phone of the victim. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner should not be released on bail. 4. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR or the statement made by the victim under Section 183 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita (BNSS). The police have completed the investigation, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had conspired with the co-accused and kept the victim in his home. His wife 4 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) destroyed the SIM and threw away the mobile phone. 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 Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271, wherein it was observed as under: - “19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role ascribed to the accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with the evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk, et al. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed: “26. While considering 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. (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu 5 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118. 27. It is equally well settled that bail, once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the Superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a Superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on society, resulting in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) (2022), 15 SCR 211 decided by a three-judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must be weighed with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words: “24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail, but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.” (emphasis supplied) 6 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) 20. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the Court, while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting (anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned: “7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus: ‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and 7 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the victim had left her home after quarrelling with her father. She sought work in Chandigarh but could not get it. She called the Jageer Singh, who advised her to stay at the Gurudwara and thereafter took her with him to his home. The victim did not name the petitioner, who had helped his father and taken her to his home. She asserted that the petitioner’s wife put her mobile phone in a bucket and threw it into the river. However, she failed to make any allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no material at this stage to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 11. The investigation is complete, and the presence of the petitioner is not required for the investigation. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of 8 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) 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 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. 13. 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. 14. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Sub Jail Kishanpura at 9 ( 2025:HHC:22339 ) Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 15. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 16. 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) 10th July 2025 Judge (mamta) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.10 19:20:32 NPT