2025:HHC:29191 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1540 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.8.2025 Date of Decision: 29.8.2025. Ritvik Thakur ...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. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 101 of 2024, dated 9.4.2024, registered at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP). It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29191 driving a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-55C-2049 on 9.4.2024. The police signalled the petitioner to stop the vehicle; however, the petitioner sped away in the car. He hit the informant and damaged the barricades. The informant was taken to the hospital, and an FIR was registered. The police laid a naka on blind curve and signalled the petitioner to stop the vehicle. The petitioner applied the brakes, but the front tyre of the vehicle burst. The vehicle skidded on the road and hit the barricades. The car never hit the informant. The police also implicated the petitioner in a false case of ND&PS. The petitioner filed a bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, which was dismissed on 8.8.2024. The petitioner has been behind bars since 9.4.2024. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a naka on 9.4.2024. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-55C-2049 came from Mandi. The police signalled the driver of the car to stop, but the driver tried to speed away from the spot. The car hit the barricades and the informant. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The petitioner was driving the car, and he was arrested. FIR No. 46 of 2023 and FIR No. 102 of 2024 3 2025:HHC:29191 are registered against the petitioner. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar. The prosecution has cited 33 witnesses, out of whom 04 have been examined. The matter was listed on 5.8.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. 3. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The police signalled the petitioner to stop the car on a blind curve. The petitioner applied the brakes, but the front tyre of the car burst. The car skidded and caused damage to the barricades. No injury was caused to the informant by the car. The petitioner was arrested on 9.4.2024, and about one and a half years have elapsed since the date of his arrest. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2025:HHC:29191 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had attempted to kill the police officials who were discharging their duties. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous; 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 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 5 2025:HHC:29191 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 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 8. 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 6 2025:HHC:29191 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 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 7 2025:HHC:29191 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) 9. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the police signalled the petitioner to stop the car. The petitioner tried to speed away in the car and hit the barricades and the informant. The medical report shows that the informant had sustained simple and grievous injuries. The manner in which the petitioner sped away in his car and caused injuries to the informant clearly shows the intention of the petitioner to crush him under the tyres of the vehicle. 12. The status report shows that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on the same day for the commission of an 8 2025:HHC:29191 offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, which provides a reason for the attempt to speed away from the spot. The manner in which the petitioner hurt a police official while trying to escape from the police shows that he has no respect for human life and is concerned with his own safety. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment would disentitle the petitioner from the concession of bail. 13. It was submitted that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the tyre and there was no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report shows that the tyre had burst after the accident and not before the accident. The vehicle had hit the barricade which led to the bursting of the tyre. The status report is specific in saying that the accused sped away the vehicle. Therefore, the submission that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the tyre and not due to the deliberate act of the petitioner is prima facie not acceptable. 14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial; however, the copies of the order sheets were not 9 2025:HHC:29191 filed to demonstrate that the delay is attributable to the prosecution. Since a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, therefore, it was essential for the petitioner to show that he had not contributed to the delay. In the absence of the order sheets, the plea taken by the petitioner that his right to a speedy trial is being violated is not acceptable. 15. The status report also shows that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has criminal antecedents and the possibility of the petitioner committing a similar crime while on bail cannot be ruled out. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 16. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner 10 2025:HHC:29191 can become a threat to society because of her criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 17. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 18. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, as the possibility of commission of a similar offence by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 11 2025:HHC:29191 19. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 20. 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 29th August 2025 (Chander)