2025:HHC:17521 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2827 and 2860 of 2024 Reserved on: 28.05.2025 Date of Decision: 04.06.2025. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2827 of 2024 Taro Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2860 of 2024 Surjeet Singh alias Rakesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate, with Mr Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 For the complainant : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate, in both the petitions. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested vide FIR No. 104 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act) and Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. The witnesses mentioned in the FIR are the relatives of the petitioners who have various litigations pending between them. Numerous complaints have been filed against the informant by the petitioners. According to the FIR, the petitioners obstructed the tractor, restrained the informant, and hurled abuses. They also gave her beatings. FIR No. 65 of 2024 was registered earlier, in which the Court had granted bail to the accused. The petitioner, Baldev, had complained that the informant was making false complaints against him and his family members. The FIR was lodged to settle scores with the 3 petitioners. The complaint was lodged in connivance with one Mahinder Singh. Petitioners had lodged FIR No. 93 of 2021 in which Mahinder Singh and his family members were sent to judicial custody for 27 days. Jitender Singh had sustained grievous injuries to his head. The allegations made in the FIR are vague. Most of the petitioners are women, sick and infirm persons. Their grandson Prithvi is also sick and is receiving treatment from PGI, Chandigarh. The offence punishable under the SC/ST Act is not made out in the present case. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petitions are opposed by a filing status report asserting that the victim/informant made a complaint to the police stating that her tractor was stopped by Taro Devi on 24.10.2024 at about 6.10 PM. The driver of the tractor turned it and left the spot. Taro Devi, Lalita Devi and Deepika Sharma restrained the informant. They caught hold of her and gave her beatings. They abused the informant in the name of her caste. The informant ran away towards the house. Taro Devi followed her. The informant called the Pradhan and narrated the incident to him. The petitioners, Baldev, and his son Surjeet abused her 4 at 7.30 AM. Taro Devi had also stopped the informant from taking water from the hand pump. The petitioner Baldev Singh, Surjeet Singh, Jitender Singh and Deepika had abused the informant in the name of her caste on 1.7.2024. FIR No. 65 of 2024 was registered regarding the incident. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The demarcation was obtained, and the hand pump was found on Khasra No.809/379 owned by Gurdev Singh. The informant and the petitioners are the residents of the same village and know each other’s caste. The informant was found to be a member of a scheduled caste, whereas the petitioners/accused were found to be members of a non-scheduled caste. The police prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the Court, which was listed on 3.1.2025 for the office report. 3. The victim filed an objection to the bail petition, reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was submitted that the petitioners had made casteist remarks against the informant. The petitioners belong to a non-scheduled caste and are influential persons. They have a history of litigation with many people and police officials. One of the accused filed a complaint with the police that the informant was running a sex racket and 5 that she had issued an apology letter in her handwriting. This was found to be false after verification. The police officials had also filed a complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 4. A reply denying the contents of the objection and affirming those of the petitions was filed. 5. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State and Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent/informant. 6. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and were falsely implicated. There is no material to connect them with the commission of a crime. The informant filed a false FIR when she found that the petitioners were granted bail in the earlier FIR lodged by her. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6 7. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders. The FIR was lodged against them earlier; however, they continued to harass the informant. They would intimidate the informant and the witnesses in case of their release on bail. He prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent/informant, submitted that the petitioners had indulged in the character assassination of the informant by making a false complaint against her. This complaint was investigated by the police and was found to be false. The petitioners are influential persons. They would intimidate the informant in case of their release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. 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: - 7 “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 witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein 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 8 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 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) 11. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9 12. The status report shows that the petitioners, Taro Devi, Deepika Sharma and Lalita Devi, had abused the informant in the field at about 6.10 PM. The petitioner, Baldev Singh and Sanjay Singh, had abused her at 7.30, when she was going downstairs. Both incidents had occurred at different places within the public view. Therefore, prima facie, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act are made out. 13. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR are false, and it was registered after the petitioners had obtained bail in the earlier FIR. This plea cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. The Court, while deciding the bail petition, has to consider the allegations made in the FIR to be prima facie correct. 14. It was submitted that the petitioners have criminal antecedents, and they had committed a similar offence against the informant and FIR No. 65 of 2024 was registered regarding this incident. Reference was also made to a complaint filed by the police against the petitioner, Baldev Singh. Criminal antecedents are relevant while deciding the bail petition; 10 however, in the present case, the earlier FIR was between the same parties, and the allegations in the complaint only show that the petitioner, Baldev, had asked the police not to enter his land without permission. Therefore, these two incidents are not sufficient to infer that the petitioners have criminal antecedents. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner, Baldev, had produced false documents before the Court showing that the informant had apologised regarding some wrongdoings. The reference was made to the investigation conducted by the police into the correctness of the document; however, this is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners. 16. The only allegations against the petitioners are regarding the use of caste-based remarks. The nature of the allegations does not justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioners. 17. The petitioners were granted interim bail on 11.12.2024, and nothing has been shown that they have misused the concession granted to them. Keeping in view this fact as well as the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, the pre-trial detention of the petitioners is not justified. 11 18. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following 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 Court on every date of hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioners will not leave their present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) 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. 12 19. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 21. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 22. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th June, 2025 (Chander) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.06.04 13:26:06 IST