2025:HHC:23621 _________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 1704 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.07.2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 Akshay alias Akshu .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajinder Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondent- State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for regular bail in F.I.R. No. 22 of 2025, dated 28.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(3) and 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. 2 2025:HHC:23621 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Munish Mahajan reported the matter to the police that the counter of his Karyana shop at Chowgan, Chamba, was opened and ₹30,000/- were stolen. He checked the CCTV footage and found one person holding a bag on his head committing the theft in the shop. The police investigated the matter and concluded, after verifying CCTV footage, that the petitioner had committed theft. The police arrested the petitioner on 11.02.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that he had closed his shop on 26.01.2025 at 2:30 p.m. When he returned to his shop at 5:30 p.m., he found that the cash box was open and ₹30,000/-had been stolen from it. The informant checked the CCTV footage and found that one person was carrying a bag on his head, who had committed the theft. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted an investigation. The 3 2025:HHC:23621 police checked the CCTV footage and found that the petitioner had committed the theft. As per the status report, 11 F.I.Rs have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Ajinder Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Ajinder Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. There is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all 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. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that 11 F.I.R.s have already been registered against the petitioner, and some of them pertain to the theft. 4 2025:HHC:23621 The petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence in the event of his release on bail. Hence, 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 5 2025:HHC:23621 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] .] 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 6 2025:HHC:23621 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 tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable 7 2025:HHC:23621 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) 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 petitioner was seen in the CCTV footage while committing the theft. The police also recorded the statements of witnesses and concluded that the petitioner had committed theft. Therefore, there is sufficient material to conclude, prima facie, that the petitioner is involved in the commission of theft. 13. The status report shows that eleven F.I.Rs were registered against the petitioner, out of which six F.I.Rs pertain to the commission of theft and the other relate to the commission of offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). The 8 2025:HHC:23621 status report clearly shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. 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. 14. It was held in Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103, that the criminal antecedents are relevant to determine the propensity to commit the crime. It was observed: 31. Moreover, the Appellant's criminal antecedents, though not involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple DRI and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes, undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences. These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose of evaluating the Appellant's propensity to interfere with the process of justice if enlarged on bail. 15. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner 9 2025:HHC:23621 can become a threat to society because of his 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.” 16. 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 charge sheet 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. 17. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, especially when the F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner relates to the commission of a similar offence, which shows that the 10 2025:HHC:23621 possibility of the petitioner committing a similar offence cannot be ruled out. 18. It was submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not so serious as to justify his pre-trial detention. This submission cannot be accepted. The Court would not have normally declined bail to a person who is accused of committing the theft; however, in the present case, the status report shows that many F.I.R.s have been registered against the petitioner for the commission of theft. Therefore, criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, and the nature of the offence would become insignificant in the present situation. 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 22nd July, 2025 (ravinder)