1 2025:HHC:36344 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.: 2330 of 2025 Reserved on : 27 .10.2025 Decided on : 31 .10.2025 Pankaj Sharma …Applicant Versus CBI & anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. Advocates General and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Pankaj Sharma has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 22025:HHC:36344 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of Case No. RC 048 2025 S 0003, dated 26.5.2025, registered under Sections 315, 238 read with Sections 108, 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, H.P. 2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. According to the applicant, he is working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police with the Government of H.P. At the relevant time, he was posted in Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P. 4. According to the applicant, he has been arrested by respondent No. 1-CBI from his native place, i.e. Jol Bahl, Post Office Dangar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 14.9.2025. Thereafter, he was produced before the Court of 32025:HHC:36344 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 16.9.2025, from where, he was remanded to judicial custody, after being remanded to police custody, for two days. 5. It has further been pleaded by the applicant that FIR No. 9 of 2025, dated 19.3.2025 was registered against him, under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, with Police Station, New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., and on 23.5.2025, this Court has transferred the investigation of the present case to CBI. Thereafter, case No. RC 048 2025 S 0003 has been registered by the CBI, on 26.5.2025. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in the present case, and has falsely been arrested in this case. He has further pleaded that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the CBI/respondent No. 1, and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 42025:HHC:36344 7. In the bail application, the applicant has pleaded other facts, such as, he has allegedly been kept under surveillance 24x7 and was forced to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances, and vide order dated 5.9.2025, he was held free to go to his residence. 8. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 9. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 10. In this case, notice was confined to respondent No. 1/CBI only. As such, respondent No. 1/CBI has filed reply/status report, by mentioning the following facts: i. On 18-03-2025 between 7-8 AM, the information regarding spotting of dead body of Shri Vimal Negi was conveyed to PS Swarghat by the witnesses who had seen it. Thereafter, Swarghat Police took necessary action and informed the facts to PS 52025:HHC:36344 Sadar Shimla where missing report of Vimal Negi was pending. ii. ASI Pankaj Sharma was directed from PS Sadar, Shimla to contact PS Swarghat for tracing out the body. After contacting PS Swarghat, he joined Home Guard Suresh, fishermen Sunil and Mahender who were deputed by SHO PS Swargaht for searching the body of Vimal Negi. They i.e. Fishermen Sunil, Mahender and ASI Pankaj as well as Homeguard Suresh Kumar reached at around 4:30 PM at the place where body was traced. Upon reaching there, ASI Pankaj Sharma instructed fisherman Sunil Kumar to turn up the body of the deceased, so that the face of the body could be seen by them. Sunil turned up the body as per the direction of ASI Pankaj Sharma. Further, on the instruction of ASI Pankaj Sharma he searched the jacket and pocket of the trouser of the deceased Vimal Negi and found one purse in the jacket which he handed over to ASI Pankaj Sharma who took out cash, apen drive and driving license from the purse in presence of Sunil. Sunil had handed over his phone to Fishermen Mahender for making a video of the instance. While Sunil was conducting the search upon the body of Vimal Negi, Shri Mahender Singh was making video in the mobile phone of Sunil Kumar. In the video. it is seen that ASI Pankaj Sharma was keeping the Pen drive with him. Four employees of HPPCL were also present at that time. After sometime, police staff of PS Talai 62025:HHC:36344 came at the spot in whose jurisdiction the body of Vimal Negi was discovered. ASI Pankaj Sharma introduced himself and handed over driving licence and cash to the police staff of PS Talai, but did not hand over the Pen Drive. iii. ASI Pankaj Sharma conducted the search of the body in absence of local police of PS Talai in whose jurisdiction the body of Vimal Negi was recovered. ASI Pankaj Sharma had neither informed regarding the recovery of the Pen drive to Police Personnel of PS Talai nor SIT made to trace Vimal Negi nor SIT constituted for investigation of the case. Later on during investigation by SIT, it was surfaced that ASI Pankaj Sharma had kept the Pen Drive of deceased Vimal Negi without lawful authority, later handed over the Pen Drive to Police officer of SIT.The Pen drive was seized on 15-04-2025 by 2nd SIT headed by Shri Navdeep Singh ASP who investigating the case. Later on, it was found in forensic examination that this Pen drive had been formatted. iv. ASI Pankaj Sharma had formatted the pen drive on 21-03-2025 in the computer of PS Sadar Shimla where he was posted. In the CCTV of the PS Sadar, it is seen that Pankaj was inserting the pen drive on 21-03-2025. On 21-03-2025 at 08:07 AM he entered in I.O. Room and at around 8:15 A.M. he inserted Pen Drive in a Computer and worked till 8:20 A.M. It is seen inCCTV footage that he was 72025:HHC:36344 opening some files in computer. He has formatted the Pen Drive with ulterior motive to screen the offenders who were behind the death of Vimal Negi. Forensic report also shows that Pen Drive was formatted in the Computer of PS Sadar. v. The acts of omission and commission established that ASI Pankaj Sharma had kept the Pen drive illegally for ulterior motive ad formatted its content for screening the offenders who are behind the death of Vimal Negi. The acts of omission and commission of ASI Pankaj Sharma prima facie shows his involvement in the offences of 315 of BNS, 238 r/w 108, 61(2), 3(5) of BNS of this case.” 10.1 It is the further case of the CBI that the applicant has deleted the data of the pen drive intentionally in order to save the offenders, involved in the crime in question. 10.2 It is the further case of the CBI that the applicant has never co-operated in the investigation, as he has changed his version, from time to time, during investigation of this case. Highlighting this fact, it has been pleaded by the CBI that the applicant was initially ready for the Polygraph and Narco Test, during his examination at New Delhi and submitted his 82025:HHC:36344 willingness, in this regard, but when, produced before the learned trial Court, he has denied the same. Not only this, it has also been pleaded that the applicant is misleading in order to delay the investigation. 10.3 In addition to this, a plea has been taken by the CBI that further police custody of the applicant is required in order to confront him, after analysis of remaining data, contained in digital/electronic devices, collected during investigation and other additional evidences, surfaced out during investigation. 10.4 Highlighting the seriousness of the offence, it has been pleaded that the applicant has been named as accused in a serious offence, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 10.5 On the basis of above facts, Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for respondent-CBI has prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed. 11. First of all, coming to the facts, pleaded by the applicant, with regard to the fact that he has been kept under surveillance 24x7, to the considered 92025:HHC:36344 opinion of this Court, these allegations are not required to be considered, as the same are not relevant for the just adjudication of the present application. 11. The applicant is in judicial custody and from this facts, at this stage, it cannot be inferred that his custodial interrogation is any longer required by the CBI. The applicant, as per the stand of the respondent- CBI, was arrested on 14.9.2025, and was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 16.9.2025. 12. Initially, he was remanded to police custody, till 16.9.2025, on the request of the CBI and their prayer, seeking further five days’ further police remand has been considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, and the said prayer has been rejected. The said order has not been assailed by the CBI till date. As such, the ground, upon which, the bail application has been opposed, i.e. seeking police custody of the applicant, in order to confront him with 102025:HHC:36344 the evidence, so collected, is too short to decline the relief to the applicant. 13. Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law, as applicant is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty. 14. The applicant has mainly been arrested in this case, for the offences, punishable under Sections 315 and 238 read with sections 108, 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS. Considering the maximum punishment, provided for these offences, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 15. Chances of commencement and conclusion of trial, against the applicant, are not so bright in future, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 16. Moreover, the applicant can be directed to join investigation, as and when, directed by the 112025:HHC:36344 respondent/CBI to do so, even in case, he is ordered to be released on bail. 17. If the stand of the CBI is considered in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, the applicant is deemed to be in custody, in case, a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- 43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail 122025:HHC:36344 by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code. 18. Similar view has again been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under:- “92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.” 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 20. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising 132025:HHC:36344 out of Case No. RC 048 2025 S 0003, dated 26.5.2025, registered under Sections 315, 238 read with Sections 108, 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla,H.P. 21. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) 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 the appropriate application; b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case, in any manner, whatsoever; c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 142025:HHC:36344 22. Any of the observations, made herein above, 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. 23. 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. 24. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of District Jail, Kaithu, Shimla through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 25. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of District Jail, Kaithu, Shimla is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Shimla. The Superintendent of District Jail, Kaithu is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court 152025:HHC:36344 within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. (Virender Singh) Judge October 31, 2025 Kalpana KALPANA Digitally signed by KALPANA Date: 2025.10.31 10:43:52 +0000