2025:HHC:1120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2866 of 2024 Decided on : 06.01.2025 Upender Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Applicant in person with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by DSP Mukesh Kumar, SDPO Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Upender Singh has surrendered to the custody of this Court and sought bail, during the pendency of the case, bearing FIR No.72 of 2024 dated 14.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:1120 Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been involved, in the FIR, in question and has nothing to do with the offences, which have been mentioned, in the said FIR. 3. As per applicant, he is having deep roots in the society and his custodial interrogation is not required by the police. 4. On the basis of above facts, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate has prayed that the applicant may be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in the FIR, in question. 5. Apart from this, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 6. Vide order dated 23.12.2024, complainant has been ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. 7. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, on 16.12.2024, disclosing therein that on 14.12.2024, complainant had appeared, before the police and submitted the complaint, mentioning therein that on 3 2025:HHC:1120 that day, at about 3pm, he had taken his goat for grazing and at that place, he was also busy in studying. Thereafter, applicant-Upender Singh came there and started abusing and threatening him to kill, upon which, the complainant disclosed this fact to his father on phone. Subsequently, his father has directed him to come back. 8. Complainant has further alleged that the applicant has also threatened his grandmother to kill, on three occasions and also given the threats to kill his grandfather. In the village, the applicant has also abused him, as well as, his family members and pelted stones upon them. Consequently, he sustained injuries. Apart from this, applicant has also made the caste-based aspersion, against the complainant. 9. On the basis of above facts, complainant has prayed that the action may be taken against the applicant. 10. Consequently, FIR, in question, has been registered against the applicant. 11. Thereafter, complainant, his father and injured Jai Inder Pal were medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Sarahan. 4 2025:HHC:1120 12. On the basis of above facts, the applicant was ordered to be released on interim bail, vide order dated 16.12.2024 and was directed to join the investigation. 13. In the supplementary status reports, which have been filed on various dates, the police has taken the plea that during investigation, spot was visited and spot map was prepared. The relevant documents, regarding the caste of the applicant and complainant, were obtained. 14. On the basis of above facts, learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2/complainant, have prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 15. Heard. 16. It is the specific case of the police that the applicant has joined the investigation. Police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation of the applicant and the role, allegedly played by the applicant, will be proved, during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, the bail application can be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law. 17. The allegations, which have been levelled, against the applicant, will be proved during the trial. 5 2025:HHC:1120 18. Except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant. The applicant is the permanent resident of District Sirmaur and as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 16.12.2024, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim order, dated 16.12.2024, is made absolute, 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; 20. 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 bail application. 6 2025:HHC:1120 21. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 22. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge January 06, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur )