Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:33515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 22
19 of 2025 Reserved on : 22
.09. 2025 Decided on : 26.09.2025 Ranjana Rawat …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. Ashok K. Tyagi & Mr. Owais K. Pathan, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, assisted by HC Pramod Kumar No.23, Police Station, Rohru. Virender Singh, Judge ApplicantRanjana Rawat, apprehending her arrest, in case FIR No.117 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025, registered, under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., has filed 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33515 the present application, 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 Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., to release her on bail, in the event of her 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. She has termed the case of the complainant, as false. 4. According to the applicant, she had made a complaint against her husband and the complainant, by alleging that her husband had left the house with the complainant, as her husband is having extra marital relations with the complainant. Upon the complaint, the police found the husband of the applicant and the complainant in a private vehicle at Police Post Shoghi, at about 1.00 a.m., in the mid night. Thereafter, the Police of
3 2025:HHC:33515 Police Post Shoghi, has entered the said fact in the rapat vide rapat Nos.7 and 8 dated 22.08.2025. 5. The applicant has also tried her luck by moving similar application before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.2152 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 2.9.2025, on the ground that no FIR has been registered against the applicant, as such, her apprehension is found to be without any basis. 6.
It is her further case that two days, after the dismissal of the application, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.2152 of 2025, the police registered an FIR on the false allegations. Thereafter, the police has called her to join the investigation. As such, the applicant is having the apprehension of her arrest. 7. Apart from this, Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi and Mr. Owais K. Pathan, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, have 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. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 4 2025:HHC:33515
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that complainant Pallavi has made a statement, under Section 173 of the BNSS, with the Police, mentioning therein, that she is working in private sector. Anshul Thakur, resident of Arahal, is her friend and known to her for a considerable time. They are best friends and usually have discussion, even on their trivial matters. 9.1. On 21.08.2025, at about 1.45 p.m., applicant Ranjana Rawat, along with one Pinku Thakur, resident of Arahal, came to her rented accommodation at Shaktinagar, near Goyal Motors and inquired from the complainant about her relations with the husband of the applicant. She has also alleged that the complainant and the husband of the applicant are having the illicit relations, upon which, the complainant allegedly cleared the picture, by stating that no such relations are there between them. 9.2. Thereafter, applicant Ranjana Rawat, had a scuffle with the complainant and she had demanded the phone of the complainant, in order to check the same, upon which, the complainant had handed over her iphone
5 2025:HHC:33515 13 to her and also disclosed password of the phone to her, so that she could check the same for her satisfaction.
After some time, when the complainant demanded her phone from applicant, then, she has refused to return the same. 9.3. According to the complainant, she was under this impression that the applicant is tensed and she might return the same after few days. As such, she has permitted her to take away her phone. 9.4. It is her further case that after so many days, the applicant has not returned the phone, as such, she has prayed that action be taken against the applicant. 10. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case and criminal machinery swung into motion. 11. Thereafter, the spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses, under Section 180 BNSS, were recorded. The CDRs of mobile phone of complainant and applicant were requested to be provided by the service provider. 6 2025:HHC:33515
12. On 06.09.2025, the CDRs have been received and it was found that the last location of the mobile phone of the complainant was with the location of applicant Ranjna Rawat. 13. After perusing the above status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant on 08.09.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2025. 14. On 15.09.2025, the Police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that applicant Ranjana Rawat, is not disclosing correctly, about the questions, which were put to her, by the police. According to the Police, the applicant is saying repeatedly that she has not visited the rented accommodation of the complainant, however, as per the location of the mobile phone of the applicant, the presence of the applicant was found near the rented accommodation of the complainant and she has also been identified by the witnesses. 15. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the mobile phone of the complainant is yet to be recovered and Pinku Thakur, who had allegedly gone with the applicant to the rented accommodation of the complainant, is yet to be
7 2025:HHC:33515 associated and inquired. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 22.09.2025. 16.
On 22.09.2025, the police has filed the supplementary status report, with the similar stand, by pleading that the mobile phone has not yet been recovered and a stand has been taken by the applicant that she does not know anything about the said phone. 17. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 18. In the present case, the applicant has joined the investigation, as and when directed to do so. 19. So far as the the recovery of the alleged phone 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:
8 2025:HHC:33515
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. 20. Similar view has again been 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
9 2025:HHC:33515 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.”
21. 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 of the alleged I phone13, 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. 22.
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
10 2025:HHC:33515 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.”
23. 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. 24. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 08.09.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR
11 2025:HHC:33515 No.117 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025, registered, under Section 316(2) of the BNS, with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., on her 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; 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. 25. 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. 12 2025:HHC:33515
26. 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 26, 2025 (ps)