IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 2567 of 2024 Decided on: 24.01.2025 ____________________________________________________ Kailash Thakur ….. petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shikha, Advocate vice Mr. Madhurika Shekhon, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Harinder Rawat, Additional Advocate General : DSP Mukesh Kumar, SDPO, Sangrah, District Sirmaur H.P. present in person. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge, Vacation Judge (oral) The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, in FIR No.67 of 2024, dated 09.11.2024, registered at Police Station, Renukaji, District Sirmaur H.P., under Section 3(1) (r) & 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. 2. Status report filed, the same is taken on record. Copy whereof supplied to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. As per the prosecution on 20.10.2024 on Karwa Chauth, the complainants Kapil Dev and Ritika were planting garlic in their fields. At that particular point of time, the present bail petitioner had approached the complainant Kapil Dev and had requested him to provide his motorcycle. The aforesaid request so made was not acceded to by the complainant. On the aforesaid refusal, the bail petitioner had demanded back the loaned amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. On this, an altercation had taken place inter se the complainant Kapil Dev and the present bail petitioner. 5. During the altercation, Ritika wife of Kapil Dev had requested the bail petitioner to not use filthy, abusive language. This enraged the bail petitioner and as a result of which he hit Ritika with a stick. As a consequence of the beatings given, the bangles of the complainant Ritika had broken. 6. Subsequent thereto, the bail petitioner is alleged to have gone to the house of the complainants. He had created a ruckus therein and had thrown the utensils out of the house. Before a report in this respect would be made, both the parties had compromised the matter. 7. After a few days on 07.11.2024, the bail petitioner is alleged to have entered the fields of the complainants Ritika and Kapil Dev. He is alleged to have used filthy, abusive language. The language used reflects the casteist mindset of the bail 3 petitioner. On 07.11.2024 itself, the complainants had gone to the house of the relatives. Subsequent thereto, the compliant was lodged on 09.11.2024. 8. Investigation in the case at hand is complete. Challan in the case at hand stands presented on 07.01.2024. Vide interim order dated 19.11.2024, the petitioner had been enlarged on bail. No recovery is to be instituted from the bail petitioner. There is no requirement of any custodial interrogation insofar as the present bail petitioner is concerned. 9. Personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 10. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 11. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 12. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the 4 confidence, that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court. 13. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Khood, P.O. Jarog, Tehsil Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P. and the respondent-State has not expressed any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purpose of safe, secure and un-obstructed completion of trial. 14. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and interim order dated 19.11.2024 is confirmed. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ; (ii) that he 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 any facts to the Court or the police; (iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the Prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner; (iv) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case; (v) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; & 5 (vi) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any. 15. Needless to say that investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner. 16. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein . 17. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Vacation Judge January 24, 2025 tarun