2025:HHC:27643 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1785 of 2025 Reserved on: 11.8.2025 Date of Decision: 18.8.2025. Virender Singh @ Gullu ...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. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, 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. 53 of 2024, dated 24.3.2024, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 24.3.2024. The Police have filed the charge sheet. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27643 prosecution’s evidence has commenced. The petitioner has his old widowed mother. The petitioner is unable to prepare his defence due to his incarceration. He is a permanent resident of District Sirmour, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the petitioner and Bhajan Lal (since deceased) were quarrelling with each other on 21.3.2024. Bhajan Lal was subsequently found dead. The police registered the FIR and conducted an investigation. As per the report of chemical analysis, no poison/alcohol was found in the viscera of the deceased. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 18.8.2025. 4. I have heard Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was 3 2025:HHC:27643 falsely implicated. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner is unable to prepare his defence because of his incarceration. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the prosecution has almost completed all the evidence. Hence, the plea taken by the petitioner that his right to a speedy trial is being violated is not correct. The petitioner has engaged counsel, and there is no impediment in the preparation of the defence. This is no ground to release the petitioner 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “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 4 2025:HHC:27643 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 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 5 2025:HHC:27643 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) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the petitioner was seen quarrelling with Bhajan Lal, who was found to be dead the next morning. Thus, the petitioner was last seen with the deceased, 6 2025:HHC:27643 and the burden would shift upon the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which Bhajan Lal had died. No such explanation was provided in the bail petition. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 11. It was submitted that the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. This is not acceptable. The copy of the bail order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, shows that the charge was framed on 29.7.2024, and all the witnesses were summoned. The copies of the order sheets have also not been filed to demonstrate that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, which is not attributable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail because his right to a speedy trial is being violated. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner is unable to defend himself due to his incarceration. This is not acceptable. The petitioner has not explained the difficulty in defending himself because of his incarceration. There is a force in submission of Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State that the petitioner is 7 2025:HHC:27643 defended by an Advocate who is taking care of his interest. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that he is unable to defend himself and is entitled to bail cannot be accepted. 13. The allegations against the petitioner show that he is prima facie involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which is punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail because of the gravity of the offence and the severity of the sentence. 14. No other point was urged. 15. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. 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 18th August 2025 (Chander)