2025:HHC:28286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1907 of 2025. Reserved on: 13.08.2025. Date of Decision: 21.08.2025. Sohail Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, 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. 145 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 333, 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 351(2) and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 03.07.2025. As per the prosecution, five persons entered the informant’s house. They were armed with sticks and had their 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28286 faces covered. They gave beatings to the informant and other persons present in the house. One person, namely, Irfan was caught by the villagers on the spot, and the remaining four ran away. Irfan named the petitioner as one of the accomplices. As per the interrogation of the petitioner, he had provided a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP17C-0390 to the accused, which was used by them to visit the place of the incident. The police have completed the investigation regarding the petitioner, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The motorcycle does not even belong to the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, 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, Harpal Chaudhary, and Vikram were present in the informant’s house on 01.07.2025. Vikram had met with an accident, and his leg was plastered. His friend Surjeet, Vaibhav, Vishal, Sunil and Anas Khan had visited the informant’s house to inquire about the well-being of Vikram. All of them were talking to each other. Five people armed with sticks and an iron rod, who had their faces covered, came to the house at 5:40 pm. 3 2025:HHC:28286 They gave beatings to the informant and other persons. They shouted for help, and the villagers gathered on the spot. One person, who identified himself as Irfan, was apprehended. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Irfan revealed during the investigation that Sandeep, Nigam, Adil, Ashu and Sohail Khan (the present petitioner) were involved in the incident. Police arrested the petitioner. He revealed during interrogation that he had handed over his motorcycle bearing registration no. HP17C-0390 to Adil. Adil, Irfan, Ashu, Sadakat, Sandeep and Nigam drove two motorcycles to the spot. They returned at about 6:30 pm and revealed that Irfan was apprehended by the villagers on the spot. FIR No. 190/2023, dated 02.12.2023, is registered against the petitioner in Police Station Kala Amb. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the injured had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offences and intimidate the witnesses, in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4 2025:HHC:28286 5. Mr Janmajai Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as per the status report, the petitioner had handed over his motorcycle to Adil, which was used for the commission of the offences. The petitioner was not present on the spot and had not indulged in the beatings; hence, he could not be held liable for the commission of the offences. 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 petitioner had provided his motorcycle to Adil and thereby facilitated the commission of the crime. He is equally liable as the person who had assaulted the informant and his family members. The offences committed by the petitioner are heinous; 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. 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: - 5 2025:HHC:28286 “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 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 view that the 6 2025:HHC:28286 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 had provided his motorcycle to the co-accused Adil, and he was in touch with Adil, Nigam, Sandeep and Ankush alias Robin; therefore, he is involved in the conspiracy. Even if these averments are taken to be 7 2025:HHC:28286 correct, the petitioner cannot be held to be a conspirator because he was in touch with the co-accused. It has to be established that the petitioner and the co-accused had met and decided to commit the crime before the commission of the crime to establish the charge of conspiracy. The status report also shows that reliance has been placed upon the statement made by the petitioner and the co- accused. Statement made to the police officer during the investigation is inadmissible in evidence as a substantive piece of evidence under Section 181 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakashya Adhiniyam (BSA). Therefore, prima facie, no advantage can be derived from the statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused to the police. 11. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 181 of BNSS) and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. Further, the confession made by the co- accused is inadmissible because of Section 25 of the Indian 8 2025:HHC:28286 Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 23 of BSA). It was observed at page 568:- 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 12. Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to a police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the petitioner and the co-accused to implicate the petitioner. 9 2025:HHC:28286 13. The status report shows that the petitioner has supplied the motorcycle, and prima facie, the submission that he can be held liable only as an abettor has to be accepted as correct. Keeping in view the fact that he has not caused any actual injury and his custodial interrogation is not required, his pre-trial detention is not justified. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 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 concerned Police Station and the 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 10 2025:HHC:28286 change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21 August, 2025 (Pramod) KARAN SINGH Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH Date: 2025.08.21 14:00:14 +0530