IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2048 of 2025 Reserved on: 27.08.2025 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 Kishore Lal & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : M/s Narender Guleria and Mr. Janak Raj, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1 with Dy.S.P.Vikram Chauhan is present in person with police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 45 of 2025, dated 02.08.2025, registered at Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 332(c), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant/victim, Tek Ram, alleged that the petitioners entered into his shop on 02.08.2025 at 11:25 a.m. They slapped him, hit him on the stomach and threatened to kill him. The informant had filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 for the commission of an offence punishable under the SC&ST Act, which is still pending. Petitioner No.1 had purchased a building near Bus Stand Jalog in the year 2017. The informant was a tenant who was occupying one shop. He and another tenant refused to vacate the building despite repeated requests. They also failed to pay the rent. A compromise was effected between the parties on 25.07.2024, and the informant undertook to pay the arrears of rent of ₹40,000/- in two instalments. One instalment was payable on 10.08.2024, and the second instalment was payable on 10.10.2024. The informant lodged the complaint on 3/4.08.2024, and F.I.R. No. 39 of 2024, dated 03.08.2024, was registered at Police Station, Sunni District, Shimla. A cancellation report has been submitted in the said F.I.R. Petitioner No. 2 noticed that the informant was removing the 3 construction material from the slab of the building. She tried to stop him; however, the informant attacked and abused her. He inflicted injury upon her with a shovel and outraged her modesty. She reported the matter to the police, and F.I.R. No. 44 of 2025 dated 02.08.2025, was registered at Police Station Sunni, H.P. The informant filed the present complaint as a counterblast to the complaint made by the petitioner. The provisions of Section 3(2) (va) of the SC&ST Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that the petitioners had entered his shop on 02.08.2025 at 11:25 a.m. They slapped him. Petitioner Kishori Lal threatened to kill him. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 inflicted blows on the informant’s stomach. Petitioner Kishori Lal had unloaded the sand on the lintel of the shop, which was leading to the seepage of the rainwater. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. Khushi Ram corroborated the informant’s statement. A video recording showing the petitioners abusing 4 and threatening the informant was also taken into possession; however, the authenticity of the video recording is to be verified by SFSL. F.I.R. No. 39 of 2024, dated 03.08.2024, was registered at the informant’s instance; however, a cancellation report was prepared and presented before the Court on 23.09.2024. The investigation is continuing. The petitioner, Kishori Lal, was earlier involved in the commission of an offence, and he would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s Narender Guleria and Janak Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and that they were falsely implicated. The informant is a tenant of the petitioner. There is a dispute over the rent between the parties, and the informant lodged a false F.I.R. against the petitioner. The petitioners would submit an undertaking not to contact the informant to remove the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the intimidation of the informant and the 5 witnesses. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6 Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Petitioner (Kishori Lal) had intimidated the informant on an earlier occasion. The petitioners would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of their release on bail. 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: - “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 6 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 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 7 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. A perusal of the status report shows that petitioners entered into the informant’s shop and gave him beatings. They also threatened to kill him. This fact was corroborated by Khushi Ram. The video recording of the incident showed that the petitioners had threatened and beaten the informant. The informant belongs to a scheduled caste, whereas the petitioners are not members of the scheduled caste. Hence, the act of threatening the informant would, prima facie, fall within the definition of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC&ST Act, and the 8 submission that no offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC&ST Act is made out cannot be accepted. 11. The status report also shows that the informant had lodged an F.I.R. No. 39 of 2024 dated 03.08.2024. The police investigated the F.I.R. and did not find any material to file a charge sheet before the Court. Hence, a cancellation report was submitted to the Court on 23.09.2024. This shows that the allegations in the earlier F.I.R. were not found to be correct. Further, petitioners have undertaken not to contact the informant in any manner during the pendency of the investigation/trial, which would take care of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that releasing the petitioners on bail would compromise the informant’s safety. 12. It was submitted that a false case was made out due to the dispute between the parties. Prima facie, this submission will not help the petitioners because the enmity is a double- edged weapon; while it furnishes a motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of a crime. Thus, enmity between the parties is not sufficient to conclude that a false case was registered by the informant. 9 13. The petitioners claimed that they are permanent residents of Shimla. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. Hence, there is no chance of the petitioners absconding. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 22.08.2025 is made absolute qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 and petitioner No. 1 is also ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/any Magistrate at Shimla. 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 shall 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 passport, if any, to the Court; and 10 (V) The petitioners will furnish their 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 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. (VI). The petitioners will not contact the informant in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the investigation/trial. 15. It is clarified that the above conditions shall apply to all the petitioners. 16. 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. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 02nd September 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbeb aff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: RAVINDER KUMAR Date: 2025-09-02 12:23:53