2025:HHC:31294 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 1969 of 2025 Reserved on  : 09 th   September, 2025 Decided on   : 12 th    September, 2025 Lakhpat Rai …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma,   Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Lakhpat Rai, apprehending his arrest in   case  FIR   No.   82   of   2024,   dated   17.07.2024, registered   under   Section   331(4),   305(A)   of   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,   2023  (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), registered with Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:31294 of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik   Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this   Court   has   been   sought  to   direct   the   Police/ Investigating   Officer   of  Police  Station   Palampur,  District Kangra, H.P., to release the applicant on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the Police, in this case, 4. The   applicant   has   earlier   tried   his   luck   by moving   the   application   for   bail,   bearing   No.   115/2025, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2025. 5. According to the applicant, he is a law abiding citizen,   running   a   jewelery   business   and   having   no previous criminal antecedents. 6. According to the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the offence, in which, he has been named as accused. 3 2025:HHC:31294 7. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Arun Kumar Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, has given certain  undertakings, for which,   the applicant is ready to abide by, in case any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, in the above­noted case, under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS. 8. When put to notice, police has filed the status report,   disclosing   therein   that   on   17.07.2024,   SI   Inder Singh,   I.O.   Police   Station   Palampur,   has   submitted   a statement, recorded under Section 173 BNSS, to the Police Station. The said statement was made by complainant Rohit Kumar, who has got recorded, in his statement, that he is resident of Village Dhadh Jhikla, Post Office Dhadh Ward   No.   1,   Gram   Panchayat   Dhadh   Jhikla,   Tehsil Palampur,   District   Kangra,   H.P.   and   doing   his   private business. His   elder   brother   is   working   in   Railway Department and residing at Kapurthala, Punjab along with his family. His father is no more in this world, whereas, his   mother   Smt.   Maya   Devi   is   receiving   pension. He, alongwith his family and mother, is residing there. He has been blessed with one son. 4 2025:HHC:31294 8.1 According to the complainant, on 14.07.2024, there was a marriage in their village and as per rituals, there was a ‘Jagrata’ (religious function) in the village. 8.2 On 15.07.2024, at about 9:30 pm, complainant along with his mother, wife and son had gone to attend the said Jagrata and after 15 minutes, he came back to his house and watched TV for 15 minutes and after switching off the light, he had again locked his house and had gone to the said religious function. When he reached there, he found that the dinner had not been started, as such, he again returned back to his home. 8.3 When he reached at his courtyard, he noticed a person in the verandah, who has muffled his face. On seeing the complainant, he ran towards the fields. The complainant chased him unsuccessfully. When he came back, then he found the door of his house open and lock was not there. When he entered in the room, then he noticed that the almirah in the room of his elder brother was open. The keys were with his mother. On seeing the condition, he has gathered that the person, who had fled away from there, had committed theft in his house. 5 2025:HHC:31294 8.4 Thereafter,   he   has  informed   his   mother,   wife and other villagers. His mother, when checked the almirah of   his   brother,   then   the   ornaments   were   found   to   be missing. Efforts   were   made   to   search   that   unknown person, but he was not found. According to him, apart from   the   jewelery,   about   Rs. 40,000/­   cash   were   also stolen. As   such,   he   has   prayed   that   action   be   taken against said unknown person. 8.5 On the basis of said facts, police registered FIR No. 82/2024, dated 17.07.2024, under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8.6 S.I. Inder Singh, I.O. Police Station Palampur, visited the spot and at the instance of complainant, spot map was prepared and photographs were clicked. Further investigation was entrusted to HC Yudhveer Singh No. 168. 8.7 During investigation, inquiries were made from the  suspects  and   their  CDRs,   CAF   and  mobile  location history were procured. The mobile phone location of one Ram Dass from 12.07.2024 to 15.07.2024, was found near the spot, as well as, near Chamunda and Nagri. He was inquired, who has admitted the said fact. 6 2025:HHC:31294 8.8 On   07.08.2024,   accused   Ram   Dass   was arrested by getting his custody transferred from the other case,   which   was   registered   with   Police   Station   Dehra, District Kangra, on 12.08.2024 and the Court has directed the I.O. to produce him on 16.08.2024, but prior to that the custody of Ram Dass was taken by the police of Police Station Haajipur, Punjab, in case FIR No. 41/2024, dated 11.07.2024, under Sections 331(4), 305 of BNS. 8.9 Thereafter,   on   03.09.2024,   again,   the production warrants were obtained and his custody was transferred in the present case and produced before the learned JMFC Palampur, from where he was remanded to five days police custody. 8.10 During police custody, accused Ram Dass made a   statement   under   Section   23   of   Bharatiya   Suraksha Adhiniyam,   2023   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “BSA’)   and identified the place, from  where, he had committed the theft. He has also disclosed that on 15.07.2024, he had committed   the   theft   and   sold   the   stolen   ornaments   on 28.07.2024 to applicant Lakhpat Rai, who is running a jewelery shop at Hoshiarpur, under the name and style of 7 2025:HHC:31294 Handa   Jewelers. He   has   identified   the   shop   of   the applicant. 8.11 Lastly, it has been asserted that the applicant is a very clever person and stolen ornaments are yet to be recovered. 9. After perusing the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant on 12.08.2025 and the matter was adjourned till 19.08.2025. 10. On 19.08.2025, police filed the status report, disclosing   therein   that   the   recovery   has   not   been   got effected by the applicant Lakhpat Rai, whereas it has been pleaded that applicant Lakhpat  Rai was  also named as accused, in FIR No. 99 of 2024, dated 23.07.2024 with Police   Station   Dehra   and   during   custody,   he   has   got recovered the stolen ornaments. 11. Thereafter,   the   matter   was   adjourned   for 26.08.2025. On that day, similar stand has been taken that the stolen jewelery has not yet been got recovered by the applicant. 12. In the status report, which has been filed on 02.09.2025, same stand has been taken. 8 2025:HHC:31294 13. So far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, as per the status report, following two cases have been registered against applicant Lakhpat Rai:­ (i) FIR   No.   99/2024,   dated   23.07.2024,   under Sections 331(4), 305, 3(5), 61, 317(4) BNS, with Police Station Dehra; (ii) FIR   No.   69/2024,   dated   06.07.2024,   under Sections 303(2), 331(4), 305 BNS, with Police Station Jwalamukhi. 14. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. The applicant has joined the investigation and he has also been associated in the investigation. However, according   to   the   police,   he   is   not   getting   the   recovery effected regarding the ornaments. 16. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery effected from the applicant as, 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 9 2025:HHC:31294 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 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. 17. 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:­ 10 2025:HHC:31294 “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.” 18. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail application, has been opposed mainly on the ground that applicant is not getting the recovery effected.   The alleged   refusal/non­cooperation   of   the   applicant,   to   the considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground for   dismissal   of   the   application,   as   no   one   can   be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 19. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme   Court   in  Tusharbhai   Rajnikantbhai   Shah 11 2025:HHC:31294 versus  Kamal   Dayani   &   Others,   (2025)   1   Supreme Court Cases 753, the applicant is entitled to the relief, as claimed,   in   the   application.     Relevant   paragraph   43   of judgment, are reproduced, as under:­ “43. We   are   of   the   firm   opinion   that   non­ cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused   that   on   being   interrogated,   he   must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the   Investigating   Officer   be   satisfied   that   the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence  and  cannot  even form  a  part  of  the record.” 20. In this case, as per the status reports, two cases have been found to be registered against applicant Lakhpat Rai. No conviction has been inflicted upon the applicant, in the said cases, by the competent Court of law nor he has been declared as habitual offender, as per the provisions of law. As such, merely, on the basis of the registration of the other  cases, adverse inference cannot be drawn against applicant Lakhpat Rai. 21. The role attributed to the applicant would be proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be 12 2025:HHC:31294 nothing,   but   pre­trial   punishment,   which   is   prohibited under the law. Moreover, the involvement of applicant has allegedly been found on the basis of confessional statement of accused Ram Dass, which, he had allegedly made during the   police   custody. The   authenticity   of   said   statement would be proved during the trial. 22. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the   applicant,   is   required   to   be   made   absolute,   as,   no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present application, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicant. 23. Considering  all   these  facts,  the  interim  order dated 12.08.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 82   of   2024,   dated   17.07.2024,   registered,   under Sections 331(4), 305(A) of the BNS, with Police Station Palampur,   District   Kangra,   H.P.,  on   his   furnishing personal bond, in the sum of   5 ₹ 0,000/­, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating 13 2025:HHC:31294 Officer. This   order,   however,   shall   be   subject   to   the following conditions : a)  That the applicant shall join the investigation of the   case,   as   and   when,   called   for,   by   the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b)  That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant shall 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. 24. 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 application. 25. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the   bail   conditions,   is   found   violated   by   any   of   the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 12th September, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)