Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 2025:HHC:39241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No.: 4390 of 2025 in Cr.MP (M) No.: 781 of 2025 Reserved on : 14.10.2025 Decided on : 20.11.2025 Harikesh Meena
…Applicant Versus C.B.I. & Another
…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate assisted by Mr. B.P. Singh, Dy.S.P., for the respondent CBI. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Shalabh Thakur and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma,
Additional
Advocates General, Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivekanand and Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate, for the complainant. Virender Singh, Judge The order of mine shall dispose of the above titled application, which has been moved by the CBI, with 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39241 a prayer to modify the order dated 08.09.2025, passed by this Court, by virtue of which, the State of Himachal Pradesh has been made party in the present case. 2. According to the applicantCBI, the above titled bail application is pending adjudication in this Court and on 08.09.2025, the request, so made by the State of Himachal Pradesh, to be the part of the proceedings, was allowed, by this Court. 3. As per the applicantCBI, this Court, while deciding CWP No.6506 of 2025 (sic. CWP No.6508 of 2025), has passed the following orders:
“37. This all demonstrates that whereas the SIT is claiming that it is carrying out the investigation in correct perspective, however, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh has his disagreements with the same. Not only this, the mode and manner in which the investigation is being carried out by the SIT, prima facie, is also not in sync with what has come in the inquiry report of Additional Chief Secretary (Home). This Court is refraining itself from making any further observation in this regard.
To say the least, if the Director General of Police of the State himself has a concern about the fairness of the fairness of the investigation, then even if this investigation is being carried out by the SIT in right earnest, it shall never instill confidence whatever may be the report of the SIT. 38. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that in this case,
3 2025:HHC:39241 there is an exceptional situation, which requires that the matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Herein the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh himself has raised grave concerns about the mode and manner in which the investigation is being carried out in his status report. The Special Investigation Team which is constituted under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, Shimla, through Advocate General, has raised questions over the authority of the DGP to raise such kind of question marks on the investigation being conducted by the SIT. The report of the inquiry conducted by an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) has not seen the light of the day. This inquiry report casts serious aspersions on the conduct of the superior officers of late Shri Vimal Negi and raises fingers on the impropriety exercised by them to allegedly confer favours over a Project proponent. The affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla demonstrates that no concrete inquiry in this regard has been made by the SIT till date, i.e., for almost last two months, despite the fact that from day one, the family of the deceased has been crying hoarse that initially the missing and thereafter the death of Sh. Vimal Negi is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. 39. Therefore, to give credence to the investigation so that the matter is investigated impartially, this Court allows this petition and directs that the investigation in the matter be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the State Police, which shall carry out investigation in the matter, in accordance with law.
In the course of conduct of said investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall ensure that no officer from the Himachal Pradesh Cadre shall be a part of the Special Investigation Team that may be constituted by it, for investigation. This Court hopes and expects that the CBI shall carry out the investigation impartially and as expeditiously
4 2025:HHC:39241 as possible. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.”
4. In view of the decision passed by this Court, in CWP No. 6508 of 2025, investigation was handed over to CBI, with a direction, that no officer from Himachal Pradesh Cadre shall be the part of the Special Investigation Team. 5. Thereafter, the CBI has reregistered the case vide RC 048 2025 S 0003, dated 26.05.2025, under Sections 108 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and has formally taken over the investigation. After 26.05.2025, all the further proceedings, investigation, procedure and filing of reports, is being conducted by the CBI. 6. On the basis of the above facts, it has been apprehended that in case, the State of Himachal Pradesh, is allowed to be a part of the proceedings, it will defeat the purpose of keeping the State away from the case, as the State further will try to justify that the investigation conducted by its officers was in its right perspective and the CBI is not doing anything different. 5 2025:HHC:39241
7. In nut shell, it is the case of the CBI that in case, State is permitted to take part in the proceedings, the very purpose of transferring the investigation to the CBI would be frustrated. 8. Lastly, it has been pleaded that once, the investigation has been entrusted to the CBI, then, no useful purpose would be served to be a party to these proceedings, since the State is not privy to proceedings/ investigation and the State will only be justifying the conduct of its SIT. 9.
On the basis of the above facts, learned counsel for the CBI has prayed that order dated 08.09.2025, may kindly be modified. 10. When put to notice, this application has been opposed by the State, by taking the preliminary objections that the application is misconceived, as, State of Himachal Pradesh has been retained as necessary party, by the order of this Court and when the order was passed, it has not been objected to, by the CBI. 11. The prayer has further been opposed by the State by filing the reply that the act and conduct of the CBI
6 2025:HHC:39241 officers is smacked of mala fide against the SIT Officers, who investigated FIR No.09/2025. The officers were summoned by the CBI at Delhi, whereas, the CBI is having the camp office at Shimla, as such, their investigation could also be conducted at Shimla. The SIT has handed over the entire record to CBI. It has also been apprehended that the CBI wants to implicate the honest and prudent action of the State with ulterior motive. 12. Apart from this, the detailed history of the registration of the FIR and the investigation conducted by the Police, has been given. Those facts are not relevant for the adjudication of the present case, as, in the present case, applicantHarikesh Meena, has sought the relief under Section 482 of the BNSS. 13. In rejoinder, the objection has been taken by the CBI that the said reply cannot be read as there was no proper authorization by the competent authority to file the reply. The person, who has filed the affidavit in support of the reply, is also stated to be an interested officer. 14. This bail application was filed before this Court on 07.04.2025. At that time State of Himachal Pradesh
7 2025:HHC:39241 has been impleaded as respondent. Thereafter, when the investigation of the case was entrusted to CBI, by this Court, while passing judgment in CWP No.6508 of 2025, on 29.05.2025, CBI has put appearance, through Shri Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. 15.
Thereafter, the applicant has moved application, which was allowed, by this Court, on 16.06.2025, while deciding Cr.MP No. 2350 of 2025. The said order is reproduced as under: Cr.MP No. 2350 of 2025 In pursuance of the directions of this Court passed in CWP No.6508 of 2025, the present application has been moved to array the Central Bureau of Investigation, as party-respondent, in the present case. Since, the application is based upon the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 6508 of 2025, the same is allowed and the Central Bureau of Investigation, is ordered to be impleaded as party-respondent, in place of State of Himachal Pradesh. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the cause title of the application. Amended memo of parties be filed on or before the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of. Cr.MP (M) No. 781 of 2025. Enabling the CBI, to file status report, list on 14th July, 2025. Interim order to continue. Registry is directed not to reflect the name of respondent-State, in the cause list, henceforth.”
16. Thereafter on 08.09.2025, learned Additional Advocate General has put appearance and on his request,
8 2025:HHC:39241 the State of Himachal Pradesh has been impleaded, as party, in the present case. The said order was passed on 08.09.2025, in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.08.2025 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4889/ 2025 titled as Desh Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 17. It would be profitable to reproduce order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No.4889/2025, wherein, the presence of Mr. Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate, has been marked for the State of Himachal Pradesh : For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, AOR Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohan Trivedi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Rattan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr.
S.D. Sanjay Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Divyam Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shubh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravish Singh, Adv. Mrs. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mrs. Sweta Singh, Adv.Mr. Aditya Shekher, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Adv. Ms. Saiyam Maan, Adv. Ms. Parul
9 2025:HHC:39241 Kananojiya, Adv. Having considered the matter at length with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, as also in the presence of the Officers of CBI; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, DIG; Mr. Rajpal Singh, SP; and Mr. B.P. Singh, DSP (IO), we pass the following order, for the present: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the CBI on the date, time and place he would be called. We make it clear that the place should be a convenient place and the time should be more earthly. (ii) On that date, the petitioner would be under obligation to cooperate with whatever information is sought from him by the CBI. The said exercise, at one go, should not exceed more than three hours. The petitioner may be called on more than one occasion depending on the necessity. (iii) As much can be said with regard to the manner and mode by which the proceedings/exercise of questioning an accused has been carried out by the CBI, and with regard to whether the accused can be said to have cooperated in the investigation, we also direct that the entire exercise of questioning the accused by the CBI shall be videographed and the same shall also be transcribed simultaneously. A copy of the same shall be provided to the accused and shall also be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing. 2.
As the parties have agreed that Shimla would be a convenient place for the first sitting, let the first sitting be held on 27.09.2025 at 11.00 am at the Camp Office of the CBI at Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 10 2025:HHC:39241
3. Thereafter, the next date, if required, shall be fixed keeping in view the coming festivities and convenience of the parties. 4. List on 11.11.2025. 5. In the meantime, the interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.”
18. Investigation, in the present case, is solely being conducted by the CBI and merely, the State of Himachal Pradesh has been impleaded as party, would not affect the right of the CBI to conduct the investigation, as the status report is being called from the CBI only, being the investigating agency. 19. As per the order dated 17.11.2025, SLP (Crl.) No.4889/2025, has been allowed and in the said case also the presence of Shri Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate, has been marked for the State of Himachal Pradesh. The order dated 17.11.2025, passed in SLP (Crl.) No.4889/2025, is reproduced, as under : For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, AOR Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Rattan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Bhargava Ravikumar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Raman Lamba, Adv. 11 2025:HHC:39241 Mr. S.D. Sanjay Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravish Singh, Adv. Mrs. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mrs. Sweta Singh, Adv. Ms. Saiyam Maan, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Parul Kanojiya, Adv. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. Pursuant to our last order, in a sealed cover, Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted a report by the Central Bureau of Investigation. We have gone through it. The same has been returned to the learned Additional Solicitor General. We do not wish to comment on the same as the investigation is still proceeding.
However, we find that the petitioner now having cooperated with the investigation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interim order requires to be made absolute. 3. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within three weeks from today, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the concerned Court. 4. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation/trial and any violation of the said would be a ground for cancellation of his bail. 12 2025:HHC:39241
5. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 6. Pending applications shall also stand
disposed of.”
20.
Learned counsel appearing for the CBI could not point out, as to how the mere presence of the State, in the bail application, would cause hindrance in the investigation or would affect the investigation, being conducted by the CBI.
21. As stated above, the State was permitted to be party in the present case, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above. Impleading a person as a party and issuing notice of the petition are two different things.
22. In view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel representing the CBI, as well as, learned Advocate General, the nature of the present bail application cannot be converted into the proceedings to determine, the allegations/counter allegations levelled against each other, by the State of Himachal Pradesh and the C.B.I., as the matter involving the present case is with regard to the relief, as sought by the applicant. As such, the present
13 2025:HHC:39241 proceedings will be confined only to the main controversy i.e. application, under Section 482 of the BNSS, moved by the applicant.
23. Needless to say that in view of the decision of this Court in CWP No.6508 of 2025, the respondentState has no right to file the status report, nor, to address
arguments.
24. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. Cr.MP (M) No. 781 of 2025
25. Enabling the respondentCBI to file fresh status report, list on 26th November, 2025. Interim order to continue.
( Virender Singh ) November 20, 2025 ( ps ) Judge