1 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1670 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Dhimanshu ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: 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.77 of 2023, dated 11.7.2023, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 323, 504, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Hassan Khan told Dikshant and Lalit alias Suraj that a boy working in Pinky Dhaba was abusing them. Hassan Khan called 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) the boy. The boy abused Hassan Khan and asked him to visit the Kumarhatti Flyover. Dikshant, Hassan and Lalit went to the spot where they found 7-8 boys standing with rods in their hands. They gave beatings to the informant party. These allegations are false. No test identification parade was conducted. The petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2023. One witness out of 27 witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. The main accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court in CrMP(M) No. 878 of 2005 vide judgment dated 7.7.2025, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 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 told the police that he and Lalit alias Suraj were consuming liquor and food on 11.7.2023 at 12.30 AM. Hasan Khan came to the room and told them that a boy working in the Pinky Dhaba was abusing them. Hassan Khan called that person. The informant and Lalit alias Suraj also talked to him. He abused them and called them near the Kumarhatti Flyover. The informant, Hasan Khan and Lalit went 3 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) to Kumarhatti flyover, where 7-8 persons armed with iron rods were present. They stopped the motorcycle and started beating the informant party. The informant party sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital. Hasan and the informant were sent to a higher institution for further treatment. The police arrested the petitioner and other persons. They recovered iron rods and sticks, which were used for the commission of the offence. The police seized the weapons of offence. Lalit alias Suraj succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. An orange angle iron was recovered, which had blood stains on it. The orange colour was also found on the motorcycle of the deceased Lalit alias Suraj. The sample of paint was obtained, and it was sent to FSL along with the angle iron. As per the report of analysis, the blood was found on the angle iron, which was insufficient for serological examination. The orange colour of the angle iron and the sample was found to be similar. The police filed a charge sheet. One witness has been examined out of 27 witnesses cited by the prosecution. One witness had died. 25 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses at Sr. Nos 1, 5 and 6 on 02.09.2025; hence, the status report. 4 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 4. I have heard Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No test identification parade was conducted, and the involvement of the petitioner has not been established. This Court has already released co-accused Hemant Kumar on bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 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 is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The role of the petitioner and co-accused was not similar, and the principle of parity does not apply to the present case. 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. 5 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 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 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 6 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 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) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of 7 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 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 8 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 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 copy of the judgment passed by this Court in Hemant Kumar versus State of H.P., 2025:HHC:21396 shows that the co-accused was released on bail because the Court found that only one witness was examined within one and a half years, and the learned Public Prosecutor had requested to call PWs at Sr. No. 1 to 4. The prosecution has to examine 25 witnesses, and the Court found that the trial is not likely to conclude soon. Similar parameters will apply to the present petitioner. The petitioner is facing the same trial. The same set of witnesses is to be examined against him, and once the Court has held in respect of one accused that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, it cannot be said that there is no delay in the progress of the trial qua the petitioner. Hence, the submission that the role of the petitioner and the co-accused has to be seen to claim parity cannot be accepted. 9 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) 13. The role would have been material had the bail been sought on the ground that no prima-facie case was made out; however, the bail was not granted on this ground, but because the right to a speedy trial of the accused was being belatedly denied by the prosecution. 14. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, 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 (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 10 ( 2025:HHC:27398 ) the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 15. 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. 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. The observations made herein-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13 August 2025. (yogesh)