2025:HHC:8676 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 507 and 508 of 2025 Reserved on:26.03.2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 507 of 2025 Chuhru Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 508 of 2025 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions. Rakesh Kainthla,Judge Since both these bail applications emanate out of a common F.I.R., the same are taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 90 of 2024, dated Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:8676 28.10.2024, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 74, 77, 78, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).The petitioners are in judicial custody. The parents of the deceased falsely implicated them due to feelings of hatred, emotional outbreak, sheer frustration, anguish,and misplaced anger due to the sudden death of their daughter, who was suffering from bipolar mental disorder and connected psychopathic problems for the last so many years. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. There is no material to prima facie disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners. The husband and parents-in-law of the deceased were arrested by the police and there is no one to look after the school-going children. The trial is going to take a very long time for its disposal, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in judicial custody. The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon them. Hence, the present petitions. 3 2025:HHC:8676 3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received an information on 28.10.2024 from Civil Hospital, Sundernagar that a woman was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition. The police went to the hospital and asked the Medical OfÏcer regarding the victim’s competence to make a statement. The Medical OfÏcer certified that the victim was not fit to make the statement. He referred the victim to PGI, Chandigarh. The victim’s father made a statement before the police, stating that the victim was married to petitioner Pawan Kumar. The petitioners and other co-accused harassed the victim for not doing household chores. Petitioner Chuhru Ram used to act indecently with the victim. The victim’s husband (Pawan Kumar) used to beat her in a state of intoxication. The petitioners and other co-accused used to abuse the victim. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim subsequently succumbed to her injuries, and as per the post- mortem report, the cause of death was burn shock consequent to thermal burns. It was found after the investigation that the petitioners and co-accused did not permit the victim to visit her parental home. They used to abuse the victim. Petitioner-Chuhru Ram used to act indecently with her. The victim told this fact to 4 2025:HHC:8676 her mother-in-law, who found fault in the victim. Victim’s Mangalsutra was missing and the mother-in-law taunted her by saying that she had sold it in the market. Her mother-in-law also entered into a compromise. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 05.05.2025 for consideration of charge. The petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Releasing the petitioner on bail would send a wrong signal to the society. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder, and she was undergoing treatment for it. She had committed suicide due to her mental disorder and the petitioners had nothing to do with her suicide. The compromise was effected between the deceased and her mother-in-law on 16.04.2023 and there is no proximity between the compromise and the date of suicide. The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the 5 2025:HHC:8676 Court may impose upon them. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioners had compelled the deceased to commit suicide by their acts. They have committed a heinous offence. The petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case, they are released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479 that dowry death remains a grave social concern and the Courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances while granting bail. It was observed: - “15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. 6 2025:HHC:8676 The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding the grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem(2024) 10 SCC 768 in the following paras: “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 7 2025:HHC:8676 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]” 9. The present petitions have to be decided as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such matters. 10. The status report mentions that petitioner Pawan Kumar, his mother Geeta Devi and his father,Chuhru Ram, used to taunt the deceased. Petitioner Chuhru Ram used to act indecently with her. Vicitm made complaints to the informant, his wife and his daughters-in-law. The informant and his wife told the victim that it would bring shame to her and she should not report the matter to the police. Petitioner Pawan Kumar used to beat her in a state of intoxication. The petitioners used to abuse the deceased. She committed suicide on 28.10.2024. These allegations in the F.I.R., prima facie, show that petitioner Chuhru Ram was acting indecently with the victim, and when she made a complaint, nothing fruitful came out of it. Copy of the compromise also shows that the mother-in-law had made allegations of illicit relations between petitioner, Chuhru Ram, and the deceased. This 8 2025:HHC:8676 compromise also corroborates the allegations made in the complaint regarding the indecent activities of petitioner Chuhru Ram. Therefore, there is sufÏcient material to prima facie show that petitioners had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. The offences are heinous in nature, and the petitioners cannot be realised on bail, keeping in view the gravity of the circumstances. 11. It was submitted that the trial is yet to commence, and the petitioners can intimidate the witnesses.This apprehension has to be accepted. The statements of the informant and his family members are yet to be recorded, therefore, releasing the petitioners at this stage would adversely affect a fair trial. 12. It was submitted that the deceased was suffering from bipolar disorder. Reliance was placed on the medical record annexed to the petition. This will not help the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was suffering from such a mental disorder as would have induced her to commit suicide. The allegations in the F.I.R. clearly show that the petitioners had created such circumstances that the deceased was 9 2025:HHC:8676 left with no other option but to commit suicide. Hence, the medical record will not help the petitioners. 13. In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail, hence, present petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 14. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd April, 2025 (Ravinder)