( 2025:HHC:23400 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 1523 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 Dina Nath Saini .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent- State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Inspector Roop Singh, SHO, WPS Una, with police record. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 21 of 2025, dated 12.06.2025, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 143(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short “BNS”) and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Immortal Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short “ITP Act”). 2 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is running a shop outside the premises of the hotel. As per the allegation contained in the FIR, Ravi Kumar was the In charge of the hotel from where 06 women were recovered. The money given to the decoy customer was also recovered from Ravi Kumar. The petitioner has no role in the commission of the crime, and he was falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Una, had declined the bail on the ground that the petitioner was earlier involved in the commission of similar offence; however, no charges have been framed in the other case. The victims stated that they had visited Una to pay obeisance at Peer Nigah Dargah, which makes the prosecution highly suspect. The petitioner’s case would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received a secret information on 12.06.2025 at 05:00 pm that Ravi Kumar was using his hotel as a brothel, and many girls could be recovered by searching the hotel. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Police Station. The police associated Rano Devi as an independent witness and handed over currency notes of 3 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) ₹1,000/- each to Constable Sanjeev Kumar and Rohit Kumar with a direction to visit the hotel as decoy customers, and signal the police in case the money was accepted. The police waited for the signal from them. The decoy customers went to the hotel and sent the signal. The police reached the hotel and found Ravi Kumar, who was searched, and the currency notes of ₹1,500/-, including the currency given to the decoy customers, were recovered from him. The police checked Room No. 203 and found one girl. Another room was checked, and six girls were found. The police seized the currency notes. The statements of the victims were recorded, and they disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and Ravi Kumar. They used to pay ₹500/- to each girl and charge ₹1,000/- to ₹2,000/- from the customers. The original owner, Pamod Singh, was confined to jail, and petitioner and Ravi Kumar were looking after the hotel. The Call detail records were checked, and the petitioner was found in touch with the recovered girls. The mobile phones have been sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and the result is still awaited. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the 4 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 5. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Ravi Kumar was found in the hotel, and money was recovered from him. The petitioner is running a shop outside the hotel, and he was implicated without any evidence. The bail is the rule, and the jail is the exception. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was named by the victims. He was in contact with them. He was earlier arrested for the commission of a similar offence, and the chances of his committing the crime in case of his release on bail cannot be ruled out. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 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 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] .] 6 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “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 legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 7 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) 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, and 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 bail application 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 court, exercising jurisdiction 8 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) 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) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The victims specifically stated that the petitioner and Ravi Kumar had pushed them into the flesh trade. They used to pay ₹500/- to the victims. The petitioner was found in contact with the victims. Therefore, prima-facie, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 4 & 5 of the ITP Act. The offence under Section 5 of the ITP Act can be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to seven years. Considering the gravity and the nature of the offence, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. 13. The status report specifically says that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence; therefore, the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs 9 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 14. It was held in Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103, that the criminal antecedents are relevant to determine the propensity to commit the crime. It was observed: 31. Moreover, the Appellant's criminal antecedents, though not involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple DRI and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes, undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences. These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose of evaluating the Appellant's propensity to interfere with the process of justice if enlarged on bail. 15. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of his criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to 10 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 16. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the charge sheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 17. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, especially when the F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner relate to the commission of a similar offence under the ITP Act, and the possibility of commission of a similar offence cannot be ruled out. 18. It was submitted that the bail is the rule and the jail is an exception, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. This 11 ( 2025:HHC:23400 ) submission is not acceptable. This principle cannot be applied universally to release every person on bail regardless of their criminal antecedents. The petitioner was released on bail by applying this principle in the previous case; however, he misused the concession of the bail and was arrested again for the commission of a similar offence. Hence, he cannot be released on bail when his previous conduct shows that he has a propensity to commit the crime. 19. No other point was urged. 20. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st July, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)