2025:HHC:31333 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 1968 of 2025 Reserved on  :    0 9.09. 2025 Decided on    :    12.09.2025 Vijay Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant     : Applicant in person with Mr. Vivekanand   and   Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocates. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Vijay   Kumar,   apprehending   his arrest,  in case  FIR No.22 of 2025, dated 22.02.2025, registered,   under   Sections   316(5)   and   61(2)   of   the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as   ‘BNS’),   with   Police   Station,   Hatli   at   Baldwara, District  Mandi,  H.P.,  has  filed  the present  application, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:31333 under   Section   482   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 Hatli at Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P., to release his on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case. 3. The relief, as claimed, in the application has been sought on the ground that the applicant is innocent person   and   has   falsely   been   implicated   and   named   as accused, in this case, by the Police. 4. According   to   the   applicant,   the   case   of   the police is highly improbable, as, the case property deposited in the Malkhana was handled by number of officials and as such missing of currency notes cannot be attributed solely to the applicant. 5. It is the further case of the applicant that the inquiry was conducted and further investigation is being carried out by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by SDPO Dharampur. 3 2025:HHC:31333 6. According   to   the   applicant,   he   has   no connection   whatsoever   with   the   offence   alleged   against him. 7. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, however, the same was dismissed on 08.08.2025. 8. Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued, under Section 482 BNSS. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status   report,   disclosing   therein,   the   fact   that   on 21.02.2025,   from   the   office   of   Superintendent   of   Police Mandi, letter dated 21.02.2025 was received through e­ mail, disclosing therein, the following facts:­ ORDER Whereas, a letter No. DA/MND/ ASJ­ III/2025­392­94   dated   17.02.2025,   (copy   of which   was   also   endorsed   to   the   SDPO Sarkaghat and SHO PS Hatli) was received from the office of District Attorney Mandi vide which it was intimated that case FIR No. 57/23 dated 4 2025:HHC:31333 05.05.2023   under   section   15,   18   and   20   of ND&PS Act registered at Police Station Hatli was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15.02.2025 in the Ld. Trial court i.e. Court of Ld. Addl. District and   Sessions   Judge­II   Mandi.   It   was   also intimated vide letter No. referred to above that as   per   investigation,   currency   notes   in   the denomination of Rs. 500 x 346 = 1 ,73,000/­ 200x19­23800 and 100 x 118 = 11800 total Rs. 2,08,600/­   were   recovered   during   the   spot proceedings   from   the   accused   and   the   same were sealed in a parcel which was deposited with   the   MHC   PS   Hatli   District   Mandi.   And whereas, on 15.02.2025 during the recording of testimony of the spot witness Smt. Vyasa Devi, request  was  made  through  the  prosecution  to open the sealed parcel containing the aforesaid currency notes. The request was allowed by the Ld. Court, the seals were checked and the same were found intact and the parcel was opened. On   opening   the   parcel,   currency   notes   in   the denomination   Rs.   500   x   14   =7000/­200   x   3 =600/­  and  100  x  181  = 18  ,100/­  total  Rs. 25,700/­   were   found.   It   was   found   that   the currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500 x 332 and 200 x 16 were found missing and notes in the denomination of Rs. 100x63 were found surplus   than   the   recovered   currency   notes sealed in the parcel during the spot proceedings. And   whereas,   a   Fact   Finding   Enquiry   was ordered vide this office Order No. R/SP/2025­ 21495 dated 18.02.2025, in this matter to find out   the   discrepancies   and   the   same   was entrusted to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gautam, HPS, SDPO   Sarkaghat   for   enquiry.   He   was   further directed to complete the enquiry within 10 days and take action as per law, if commission of any cognizable offence is made out. And whereas, SDPO Sarkaghat has submitted enquiry report received in this office vide Diary No. 2545 dated 21.02.2025. The   enquiry   report   revealed   that "the perusal of the record and the letters under reference clearly indicate that currency notes in the   denomination   of   Rs   500x   346173000/­, 5 2025:HHC:31333 200x119­23800/­ and 100x118­11800/­total Rs 2,08,600/­   were   seized   along   with   the contrabands  and sealed cloth parcel of above cash   was   deposited   in   the   Malkhana   of   the police station Hatli on dated 05.05.23 by ASI Ramesh Chand, IO PS Hatli as reflected at Sr. No. 4, item No 346 in register No 19 of the police station   Hatli. The   same   denomination   of currency notes have been stated to be seized in the   seizure   memo,   FIR,   statements   of   the witnesses recorded by the IO on spot, Arrival report   of   the   IO   in   the   above   case. The   said parcel was sent to the Ld/­court through Const. Praveen Kumar No. 900 PS Hatli vide GD Entry No 05 dated 15.02.25, but in the said GD entry number   of   200x119­23800   was   entered   as 200x19­23800 as a result of typing error and the rest of the description was correctly entered as explained by the SHO in his reply. The parcel was opened in the Learned court for the first time and seals were found to be intact, however, the  currency  notes   of  the   description  500x14­ 7000/­, 200x3=600  and 100x181­18100 Total Rs 25700/­ were found out from the parcel, as such this clearly indicates that the case property as mentioned above has been misappropriated anytime during the date of seizure and deposit in   the   Malkhana,   i.e.   05.05.23   to   its   date   of production/opening   in   the   Learned   court   on 15.02.25. A thorough investigation is needed in this matter by way of registering a criminal case under relevant sections of law in the interest of justice. Now, therefore, SHO Police Station Hatli is directed to register an FIR/ Criminal Case in the matter as per law. The investigation of FIR so   registered   will   be   carried   out   by   Special Investigation Team under the supervision of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar­V, SDPO Dharampur for which separate order is to be issued after registration of   FIR. Sd   Superintendent   of   Police,   Mandi, District Mandi (HP)” 6 2025:HHC:31333 11. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   the   police registered   the   case   and   criminal   machinery   swung   into motion. 12. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, constituted   Special   Investigation   Team   (SIT),   under   the leadership   of   Sanjeev   Kumar   SDPO   Dharampur,   on 22.02.2025, to investigate the matter. The SIT thereafter recorded   the   statement   of   the   witnesses   and   also considered   the   entry   regarding   FIR   No.57/23,   dated 05.05.2023,   in   Malkhana   Register   No.19. The   clothed parcel was taken into possession and the applicant was also inquired. His bank details were obtained. The clothed parcel   of   case   FIR   No.   57/23,   has   been   sent   to   RFSL Mandi, from where, report has been received, which reveals that  two  types  of  stitching  patterns  are  present  on  the marked end ‘A to B’ and in the clothed parcel, 19 currency notes of Rs.100/­ were found to be printed in the year 2024, whereas, FIR was registered on 5.5.2023. Hence, a suspicion has been raised in the status report that in the parcel, the presence of currency notes, which were issued in the year 2024, is also a suspicious fact. 7 2025:HHC:31333 13. After perusing the above status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 25.08.2025. 14. On   25.08.2025,   the   Police   filed   the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that 19 currency notes of 100 rupees denomination, which were published in the year 2024, were found in the parcel of FIR No.53/23, dated 5.5.2023 and this fact has been taken as a suspicious circumstance against the applicant, as he was posted as MHC Police Station Hatli  from 16.03.2024 to 15.02.2025. 15. During   investigation,   it   was   found   that   the police official has brought the case property in case FIR No.57/23,   dated   5.5.2023,   to   the   Court   of   learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi from Police Station Hatli, on 15.02.2025. As per his statement, on 15.02.2025, the case property was handed over to him by the then MHC Vijay   Kumar,   who   was   Incharge   Malkhana   and   handed over   the   same   to   Constable   Praveen   Kumar   and   also apprised him about the contents of the same. 8 2025:HHC:31333 16. It is the further case of the police that when Constable Praveen Kumar reached the Court, along with case property, then, MHC Vijay Kumar (applicant) called him   twice   and   inquired   about   the   fact   that   parcel containing   the   cash   was   opened   or   not   and   when   the parcel   was   opened   and   deficiency   in   the   amount   was found, then, Constable Praveen Kumar apprised MHC Vijay Kumar (applicant) and thereafter, his phone was found to be switched off. 17. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that thereafter, applicant Vijay Kumar (applicant) is absconding and his absent report has been recorded. Applicant, when joined the investigation, disclosed that on 02.02.2025, he was in dire need of money, as such, he has opened the parcel   containing   currency   notes   of   Rs. 2,08,600/­, pertaining to FIR No. 57/2023. 18. It is the further case of the police that as per the statement of accounts, it was found that the applicant is addict of online gaming. 9 2025:HHC:31333 19. As per the status report filed on 02.09.2025,  a plea has been taken that the recovery of Rs.1,82,900/­, is yet to be effected, in this case. 20. As per the stand taken by the applicant, the parcel was handled by a number of persons, right from its preparation till its production before the Court, when the factum of deficiency/short comings, in the currency notes has been found. The said fact cannot be ignored at this stage. Although, the Constable to whom, the applicant had handed over the parcel for production before the Court has deposed that the applicant had inquired twice from him about the fact whether the parcel has been opened in the Court   or   not,   however,   the   said   fact   would   be   proved during the trial and merely on the ground that the said witness has deposed so, the relief, to which, the applicant, otherwise is entitled to, cannot be declined to him. 20. It is the case of the police that when the parcel was produced before the Court, the seals were found intact and thereafter, the parcel was opened. On this ground also,   the   stand   of   the   applicant   qua   handling   the   case property by a number of persons cannot be ignored. 10 2025:HHC:31333 21. So far as the objection that the applicant has not got recovered the amount, is concerned, the said fact, in   view   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court  in Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   &   Others   versus   State   of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, cannot be considered   a   circumstance   against   the   applicant,   as person,   having   the   protection   under   Section   438   Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered 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 11 2025:HHC:31333 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. 22. 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:­ “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.” 23. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail application, has been opposed mainly on the ground 12 2025:HHC:31333 that applicant is not getting the recovery of the alleged amount of Rs.1,82,900/­, 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. 24. 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 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.” 13 2025:HHC:31333 25. 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. 26. Considering   all  these  facts,  the  interim  order dated 11.08.2025, 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.22   of   2025,   dated   22.02.2025,   registered,   under Sections   316(5)   and   61(2)   of   the   BNS,   with   Police Station, Hatli at Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of   5 ₹ 0,000/­, with one  surety of  the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a)  That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b)  That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; 14 2025:HHC:31333 c) That the applicant will 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. 27. 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. 28. 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 the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 12, 2025 (ps)