1 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1784 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Decided on: 22.08.2025 Mehakdeep Singh ...…. 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. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, 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.15/2023, dated 24.01.2023, registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that a false case has been registered against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, Neha 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) (since deceased) came to Bharwain on 22.01.2023. The petitioner killed Neha and threw her dead body into a gorge. The police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The prosecution has cited thirty witnesses, but examined only eight witnesses so far. The matter was listed for prosecution witnesses fourteen times. The delay is not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Jalandhar. He would abide by 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 police received a telephonic information on 23.01.2023 that a dead body of an unknown girl was lying in the gorge. The police visited the spot and recovered the mobile phone, which was traced to Baljit Kaur @ Neha. Her father made a statement to the police that the victim, Baljit Kaur alias Neha had left her home on 21.01.2023 by saying that she was going to attend her friend’s marriage. She did not return. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The call details record was analysed, and the last call was found to have been made to mobile number xxx045. This mobile number was owned by Mehakdeep Singh (petitioner). The locations of the mobiles of the petitioner and the deceased were found to be 3 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) the same. The police arrested the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner and the juvenile had murdered Neha. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that he could get the clothes worn by him recovered. However, no clothes were recovered. The hotel where the petitioner, juvenile and deceased had gone was also mentioned by the petitioner. The police seized the CCTV footage, the visitor’s register and the petitioner’s identification documents. As per result of the analysis, human semen was found on the underwear, lower and samples of the victim. The DNA of the petitioner matched the DNA lifted from the underwear, lower and vaginal swab of the deceased. The CCTV footage had the video footage of the petitioner. As per the report of the post-mortem, the cause of death was asphyxia due to constriction of the neck. The petitioner and the juvenile had murdered the deceased after having sexual relations with her. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous. The matter is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una. Statements of eight witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is now listed on 25.09.2025 for recording the statements of witnesses. 4 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. The police arrested the petitioner on 26.01.2023. More than two and a half years have elapsed since his arrest. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, 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 had raped and murdered a young girl. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and punishable with capital punishment. 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. 5 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) 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 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) 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. A perusal of the status report shows that human semen was detected in the lower/pyjama, underwear and vaginal swab of the deceased. The DNA lifted from the lower, underwear and vaginal swab matched the petitioner’s DNA. This report prima facie shows that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with the deceased. The petitioner was in touch with the deceased, and the location of his mobile phone and the mobile phone of the deceased were found same. The CCTV footage, the visitor’s register and the identification document taken from the hotel show that the petitioner and the deceased had stayed together. The deceased was found dead soon thereafter. All these circumstances, prima facie, show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. Hence, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is insufficient material to connect him with the commission of crime is not acceptable. 8 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) 11. The petitioner was in touch with the deceased. He and the deceased visited Bharwain, where the dead body of Neha was found. The circumstances on record prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The offence is heinous and punishable with capital punishment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail because of the gravity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. 12. The status report shows that the statements of eight witnesses have been recorded. It was submitted that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. However, it is not possible to appreciate this submission in the absence of order sheets maintained by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner can claim the violation of his right to a speedy trial if the delay is not attributable to him. In the absence of the order sheets, there is no material to show that the delay is not attributable to him, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner was released on bail on one occasion, and he had surrendered, which shows that the petitioner is not likely to abscond. The reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil 9 ( 2025:HHC:28512 ) Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) 1904/2023 dated 29.03.2023. However, the nature of the offence has not been mentioned in the order, and it is difficult to apply the same to the present case. 14. No other point was urged. 15. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22 August 2025. (yogesh)