2025:HHC:16489 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2990 of 2024 Reserved on: 16.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025. Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 18 of 2022, dated 15.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. As per the prosecution’s case, the petitioner and the deceased were neighbours. The deceased had not returned to his home on 15.1.2022. The wife of the deceased searched for him and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16489 found him lying dead in the petitioner’s room. His body was covered with a bed sheet. The matter was reported to the police. The police conducted the investigation and found that the petitioner had illicit relations with the informant, the wife of the deceased. The petitioner had strangulated the deceased when he was in a state of intoxication. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 30.3.2022. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses in the main challan and 04 witnesses in the supplementary challan. The matter is being listed for prosecution evidence since 22.6.2024, however, only one witness has been examined so far. The main witness has resiled from his statement and has not supported the prosecution's case. The petitioner has completed 02 years and 11 months in custody, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information that one person was lying dead in a room. The police visited the spot, and the informant made a statement that she was married to Rahul Kumar Yadav (since deceased). Rahul was residing with his 3 2025:HHC:16489 family. Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner) was residing in the adjacent room. The petitioner, Sanjay, called Rahul to his room. They consumed liquor. The informant, called Rahul who told her that he would come after some time. When he did not return till 10.00 PM, the informant went to the petitioner’s room. She asked about her husband, and the petitioner replied that he (deceased) had left the room; however, she found that her husband was lying under the cot in the room, and he was covered with a bed sheet. She checked her husband and found him dead. The police registered the FIR and conducted investigation. The cause of death was asphyxia secondary to compression of the neck, consistent with antemortem throttling as per the autopsy report. As per the report of analysis, 270.55% proof alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. The police filed the charge sheet on 11.1.2024. FIR No. 17/15 dated 17.3.2015, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses out of whom 03 witnesses have been examined and 19 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed on 4 2025:HHC:16489 23.6.2025 and 24.6.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses’. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses out of whom only 03 witnesses have been examined. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:16489 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:16489 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 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 7 2025:HHC:16489 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the deceased visited the petitioner’s room, where they consumed liquor. The informant went to call the deceased, and the petitioner told her that the deceased had already left the room. She found the deceased kept beneath the cot, and his dead body was covered with the bed sheet. He was found dead. The postmortem report shows that the deceased had died due to strangulation. He was last seen alive with the petitioner. Therefore, the burden is upon the petitioner to explain what happened to him in his room. The petitioner has not provided any explanation regarding the circumstances that led to his death; therefore, prima facie, it can be inferred that the petitioner murdered the deceased. Murder is a heinous offence punishable by death. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 8 2025:HHC:16489 10. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of a violation of his right to a speedy trial. This submission cannot be accepted. It is apparent from the certified copies of the order sheets that the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge on 23.8.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time for consideration on the charge on 10.2.2023, 14.8.2023 and 9.10.2023. The charge was framed on 9.1.2024. Learned Trial Court had also noticed on 3.9.2024 that the Court was under an obligation to conduct the trial daily. This order shows the concern of the learned Trial Court to decide the case expeditiously. The prosecution has examined three witnesses, and the matter is listed on 23.6.2025 and 24.6.2025 for recording the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Court or the prosecution. The delay occurred because of the adjournments sought by the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot take any advantage from the delay caused by him. 11. It was submitted that the main witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case. The photocopy of the statement made by Rinku was also filed in support of this submission. It is not permissible to grant bail after the commencement of the trial 9 2025:HHC:16489 on the ground that prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of the trial and grant bail because of some discrepancy in the testimony. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event that the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 10 2025:HHC:16489 12. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. 13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th May, 2025 (Chander)