1 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.1860, 1861, 1862 & 1863 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Decided on: 22 .08.2025 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1860/2025 Vishal ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1861/2025 Pawan Kumar ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent 3. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1862/2025 Pankaj Kumar ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent 4. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1863/2025 Arjun Rana ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent 2 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate in all the petitions. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General in all the cases. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge All the petitions have been filed for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 123 of 2025, dated 12.07.2025, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 75, 115(2), 190 and 191(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS). Since all the petitions have arisen out of the common F.I.R.; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioners are innocent and that they were falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioners quarrelled with one Raj Kumar, who objected to the indecent gestures made by some unknown person to the victim. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petitions. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 3 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) 3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police that some unknown person had acted indecently with her. Raj Kumar protested, and he was beaten by 5-6 unknown people. The victim made a written complaint to the police stating that she had reached Kangra bus stand on 11.07.2025 at 11:00 pm. She had gone to the toilet. Somebody followed her. He made indecent gestures to her. The victim shouted for help. The other passengers came to the spot. The person caught hold of the victim. He was intoxicated. Raj Kumar started preparing the video. 5-6 people came to the spot and gave beatings to Raj Kumar. The persons ran away. The victim took his photograph. The police registered the FIR. Raj Kumar made a statement that 5-6 people had told the unknown person to run away. They beat Raj Kumar and sped away on the Scooties. The police identified the unknown person as Vijay Kumar. Five people were called to the police station. The victim identified them. She also identified Vijay Kumar. The police arrested the petitioners and seized the scooties used for getting away from the spot. One of the accused was found to be a juvenile. The petitioners would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 4 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) 4. I have heard Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), submitted that, as per the allegations made by the prosecution, Vijay Kumar had made indecent gestures to the victim. The petitioners came to the spot subsequently and gave beatings to Raj Kumar, who was preparing the video of the incident. The petitioners had not abetted the victim’s sexual harassment. The identification made in the police station during the course of investigation is hit by Section 181 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). There is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed that present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners had given beatings to Raj Kumar, who was trying to assist the victim. They helped in the escape of Vijay Kumar, which shows their common objective. More than five persons were present, and they constituted an unlawful assembly. The offence 5 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) committed by the petitioners at the bus stand would affect the public. Therefore, he prayed that present petitions 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 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) 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 petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. A perusal of the status report shows that Vijay Kumar was alone when he made the indecent gestures to the victim. Other persons came after Raj Kumar started video recording the incident on his mobile. Vijay had harassed the victim, and 5-6 persons who came to the spot subsequently could not have shared the common object to sexually harass the victim. 11. The status report also shows that the victim had identified the petitioners and Vijay Kumar at the police station. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that such identification amounts to a statement made by a witness to the 8 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) police during the investigation and is hit by Section 181 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 162 of Cr.P.C). It was laid down in Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733 that an identification made in the police presence is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and is inadmissible in evidence. It was observed: - “11. The infirmities in the conduct of the test identification parade would next bear scrutiny. The major flaw in the exercise here was the presence of the police during the exercise. When the identifications are held in police presence, the resultant communications are tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in the course of the investigation, and they fall within the ban of Section 162 of the Code. (See Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay [Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903: AIR 1955 SC 104: 1955 Cri LJ 196].)” 12. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon the identification of the petitioners made by the victim before the police, as it does not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence. 13. The petitioners were arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 75, 115(2), 190 and 191(2) of BNS. All the offences except Section 75 of BNS are bailable in nature. It has been found above that the prosecution’s version that the petitioners had shared a common object to sexually 9 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) harass the victim is prima facie highly doubtful. Therefore, there is insufficient material to detain the petitioners in custody for committing a non-bailable offence. 14. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions:- (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioners will attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioners 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 petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile numbers and social media contacts 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 numbers or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 10 ( 2025:HHC:28396 ) 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 petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District and Open-Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 17. The observations made herein-above are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22 August 2025. (Yogesh) YOGESH SHARMA Digitally signed by YOGESH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.22 11:42:06 +0530