1 2025:HHC:28510 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1727 of 2025 Reserved on : 12.8.2025 Decided on : 22.8.2025 Anil Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Karan Kapoor and Mr. Nitish, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. AGs, assisted by Mukesh Sharma, SDPO, Sangrah, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Parv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge The applicant, by surrendering himself to the custody of this Court, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2 2025:HHC:28510 BNSS’) for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 54 of 2025, dated 18.7.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304(2) and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), Section 3 (1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’), with Police Station, Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. As per the applicant, allegations against him are false and incorrect, as, no such remarks have been made by him, and it was the complainant, who was harassing a woman of his own village and when, the applicant was heading towards his house, the complainant was arguing with the said woman. On asking, the said woman disclosed all the facts to the 3 2025:HHC:28510 applicant, for which, the complainant was harassing her. Thereafter, the applicant intervened and made endeavours to resolve the dispute. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that later he came to know about the fact that two FIRs, have been registered with Renuka Ji Police Station, out of which, one was registered against the complainant by the said woman and the second FIR was registered against the applicant by the complainant. The FIR is stated to have been registered against the applicant, just to settle the personal scores. 5. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 6. On 22.7.2025, when the applicant has surrendered to the custody of this Court, then, Police was directed to file status report. Consequently, 4 2025:HHC:28510 Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that the complainant (Respondent No.2), filed a complaint to the police of Police Station, Renukaji, by alleging that on 18.7.2025, he was on his way to Shimla from Jar Drabil, in his vehicle. When, he was on his way, then, at a place known as ‘Khud’, Anil Kumar (applicant) stopped his vehicle and caught him from his neck and uttered the words, “ तू कोली कोल्टा नीच जात का है ". Thereafter, the applicant had also taken out the keys of his car and cash worth Rs. 19,600/- from his car. The applicant had allegedly threatened the complainant that in case, any complaint is made against him, he will kill him. 6.1. On the basis of above facts, Police registered the FIR against the applicant and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6.2. On the basis of above facts, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter has been adjourned, for 29.7.2025. 5 2025:HHC:28510 6.3. On 29.7.2025, the Police filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that after registration of the FIR, complainant was medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital, Dadahu, however, no injury was found on his person. On 23.7.2025, a correspondence was made to Tehsil Office, Dadahu to obtain the caste certificates of applicant Anil Kumar and complainant Baldev Singh. The spot was visited on 24.7.2025. Spot was photorgraphed and videographed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the spot, vehicle No. HP-71A-2196 was found parked. The said vehicle was claimed by the applicant to be his vehicle. However, he has feigned his ignorance as to who had parked the same on the spot. As such, Section 304 (2) of the BNS was added, in this case. 6.4 As per the documents obtained from the Tehsil Office, complainant (respondent No. 2) was found to be of Koli caste, whereas, the applicant was 6 2025:HHC:28510 found to be of Kanait Rajput. The applicant has also produced the Scheduled Tribe Certificate with a prayer to remove the provisions of SC & ST Act. The said certificate was thereafter sent to SDM (Civil), Nahan to verify its validity. 6.5 As per the statements of the witnesses, recorded on 25.7.2025, according to the Police, it was found that applicant Anil Kumar had a verbal altercation with the complainant, regarding money and both of them had slapped each other, whereas, according to the complainant, applicant had made caste based aspersions to him, and also took out a sum of Rs. 19,600/- from his car. The matter was, thereafter, adjourned for 5.8.2025. On 5.8.2025, fresh status report was directed to be filed on 12.8.2025. 7. The complainant has also filed objections, in this case, by taking objections that the allegations, levelled in the FIR are duly corroborated in the 7 2025:HHC:28510 investigation. In this regard, statement of complainant, as well as, witnesses have also been relied upon. In addition to this, it has also been pleaded that recovery of cash remains to be effected. 8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 9. In this case, a stand has been taken by the Police that recovery of Rs. 19,600/- and key of the vehicle have yet not been effected, whereas, in the status report, filed on 29.7.2025, it has been mentioned that as per the statements of six witnesses, recorded on 25.7.2025, it was found that applicant on 18.7.2025 stopped the vehicle of the complainant and an altercation took place between them, as the applicant demanded the sale proceeds of the buck, which had got purchased by the complainant and both of them had slapped each other, whereas, it has been mentioned in the statement of the complainant, that the applicant 8 2025:HHC:28510 allegedly made caste based aspersions and took out the key of the car and a cash of Rs. 19,600/-. 10. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- 43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2) (i), (ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the 9 2025:HHC:28510 investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code. 11. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under:- “92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.” 12. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid two cases, the 10 2025:HHC:28510 applicant is deemed to be in custody of Police for the purpose of recovery of key of the vehicle and the cash of Rs. 19,600/- 13. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 22.7.2025 is liable to be made absolute. Consequently, interim order dated 22.7.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 54 of 2025, dated 18.7.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, and Section 3(1) of the the SC & ST Act, registered with Police Station, Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; 11 2025:HHC:28510 b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 14. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present applications. 15. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the applicants. (Virender Singh) Judge 22.8.2025 Kalpana