2025:HHC:23408 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1539 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025. Anuj Kumar ...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. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 4 of 2025, dated 15.1.2025, registered at Police Station Sihunta, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). As per the prosecution, the informant Reena Devi made a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:23408 complaint to the police that her elder daughter Meenakshi, was married to Anuj Kumar (petitioner). Anuj Kumar stopped Meenakshi from talking to her relatives. He did not allow her to visit her matrimonial home. He gave her beatings and threw her out of her marital home. Meenakshi sustained injuries on her body. Subsequently, Meenakshi committed suicide by consuming poison. The allegations in the FIR are false. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court on 24.4.2025. The petitioner is in jail, and his custodial interrogation is not required. The co-accused Lal Chand and Veena Devi have already been bailed out by the learned Trial Court. The conclusion of the trial will take some time. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and there is no chance of his absconding. 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. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the complainant made a complaint to the police that Meenakshi was married to the petitioner. The petitioner used to suspect Meenakshi. He used to beat her. He turned her out of her matrimonial home after beating her. She had 3 2025:HHC:23408 sustained multiple injuries on her face, chest and arm. She went to her parental home and narrated the incident to the informant. The informant did not report the matter to any person because she had to settle Meenakshi in her matrimonial home. Subsequently, Meenakshi consumed poison. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. Her viscera was sent to the FSL. As per the report, traces of phosphine gas (phosphide) were found in the viscera. The Medical Officer reported that the cause of death was phosphine gas (phosphide) poison. It was found during the investigation that the petitioner used to beat Meenakshi. The Ward Member of the area also tried to counsel the petitioner, but he continued to beat Meenakshi. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 22.8.2025 and 23.8.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4 2025:HHC:23408 4. Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The deceased or her family members never made any complaint to any person regarding the harassment. A false complaint was made after the death of Meenakshi. The charge sheet has been filed, and 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. 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious. He had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The release of the petitioner on bail will send a negative signal to society. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - 5 2025:HHC:23408 “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) 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 6 2025:HHC:23408 a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, 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 application for bail 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 a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7 2025:HHC:23408 9. A perusal of the status report shows that specific allegations were made against the petitioner that he had harassed and beaten the victim. The Ward Member of the area tried to counsel the petitioner, but he continued to beat the victim. Hence, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to conclude that the petitioner had created such circumstances that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. 10. It was submitted that the allegations are false and no complaint was made by the deceased or her relatives during her lifetime. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116: (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 652: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 that failure to report the matter does not make the prosecution’s case suspect. It was observed at page 122: 17. The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment. 8 2025:HHC:23408 11. Therefore, the prosecution’s case cannot be doubted because no complaint of harassment was made during the lifetime of Meenakshi. 12. In any case, a proper explanation has been provided in the status report that the informant wanted to settle the victim in her matrimonial home. Any complaint to the police would have adversely affected the chances of settlement; therefore, the prosecution's case cannot be doubted simply because no complaint was made to any person by the deceased or the informant during her lifetime. 13. The allegations against the petitioner are grave. A young life was lost due to the petitioner’s acts. The prosecution evidence has not started as yet, and releasing the petitioner on bail will affect the fair trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 14. It was submitted that the co-accused have been released on bail and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. This submission cannot be accepted. Specific allegations of cruelty were made against the petitioner in the FIR, whereas no such allegations were made against the co- 9 2025:HHC:23408 accused. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co- accused. 15. No other point was urged. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 17. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st July, 2025 (Chander)