Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:23184 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.:
1376, 1379, 1380,
1402, 1408
of 2025 Reserved on :
08 th July, 2025 Decided on :
17 th Ju
ly , 2025
1. Cr.MP (M) No.
1376
of 2025 Rajeev Bindal
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2. Cr.MP (M) No.
1379
of 2025 Sukh Ram Chaudhary …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
3. Cr.MP (M) No.
1380
of 2025 Alka Rani
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
4. Cr.MP (M) No.
1402
of 2025 Ashish Attri
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2
2025:HHC:23184
5. Cr.MP (M) No.
1408
of 2025 Itinder Kumar @ Indra …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s) : Applicants in person with Mr. Sudhir Thakur & Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Adhiraj Thakur, Karun Negi, Anshul Attri, Ankit Chandel, Somesh Sharma and Chandresh Pal Vaidya, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma,, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nishchint Singh Negi, S.P. Sirmaur, Manvinder Thakur, SDPO Paonta Sahib, S.I. Jagat Ram, SHO, ASI Bhim Singh and HC Baljeet Kumar No.258, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge The above titled bail applications, are being decided by a common order, as all these applications have been filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3
2025:HHC:23184 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the same FIR. 2. The applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in case FIR No.97 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered, under Sections 299, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 115(2) 121(1), 109, 61(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., have approached this Court, by way of the present applications, with a prayer to direct the Police/ Investigating Officer of Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above mentioned FIR. 3. Applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, in Cr.MP(M) No.1376 of 2025, has asserted that he remained Speaker of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.
He also remained Member of H.P. Legislative Assembly from Nahan Constituency for two successive terms. Prior to that, he was Member of Legislative Assembly from Solan Constituency. He also remained Health Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4
2025:HHC:23184
4. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal remained engaged in various social activities throughout the country and it is his further case that he is State President of Bharatiya Janta Party. 5. Applicant Sukh Ram Chaudhary, in Cr.MP(M) No.1379 of 2025, has pleaded that he is Member of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Paonta Sahib Constituency and he has been elected as such, for the fourth time. He also remained as Energy Minister of Himachal Pradesh and also Chief Parliamentary Secretary, in the year 2010. He has pleaded these facts to demonstrate that he is having deep roots in the society and remained engaged in various social and political activities. 6. Applicant Alka Rani, in Cr.MP(M) No.1380 of 2025, has pleaded that she is President of Sunrise Mahila Mandal and President of Bahti Biradri (women) Sirmaur and also President of Laxmi Self Help Group Behedwala and Ward Member of Ward No.11 Sainwala Mubarikpur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. 5
2025:HHC:23184
7. Applicant Ashish Attri, in Cr.MP(M) No.1402 of 2025 and applicant Itinder Kumar @ Indra, in Cr.MP(M) No.1408 of 2025, have pleaded that they are social and political activists and remained engaged in various social activities. 8. It is the further case of the applicants that they have falsely been named as accused, in this case, as, they have nothing to do with the crime, in which, they have been named as accused. They have also termed the FIR registered against them as false and having been lodged in illegal manner and on the basis of political rivalry, at the instance of Ruling Party in the State. 9. According to the applicants, there is no substance in the complaint filed against them. 10. It is their further case that they have been named as accused, in this case, on account of political vendetta. 11.
The applicants have also given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating
6
2025:HHC:23184 Officer, in the abovenoted case, under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS. 12. Apart from this, the applicants, through their counsel, have also given certain undertakings, for which they are ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued in their favour, under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS. 13. On the basis of the stand, so taken in the applications, the police was directed to file status report, on 17.6.2025. 14. The police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 13.06.2025, HC Pradeep Kumar No.209, was directed to visit Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib and JC Juneja Hospital, to verify the factual position, as mentioned, in reports No.38 and 39. In JC Juneja Hospital, HC Sandeep was found in injured condition. Requisite forms were filled for his medico legal examination and MLC was obtained. 14.1. Thereafter, HC Pradeep Kumar No.209, visited Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib, where ASI Ashish Kumar, was found admitted for treatment. MLC of SI Ashish Kumar
7
2025:HHC:23184 was obtained. The Medical Officers of JC Juneja Hospital, and Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, declared the injuries on the person of HC Sandeep Kumar and ASI Ashish Kumar as simple in nature. 14.2. Thereafter, ASI Ashish Kumar, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, got recorded his statement, under Section 173 of the BNSS to HC Pradeep Kumar No.209, disclosing therein, that he is posted as I.O. in Police Station Majra. 14.3. On 10.06.2025, a case FIR No.95 of 2025, was registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS, on the ground that one Muslim boy had enticed away a Hindu girl. In this context, on 13.06.2025, in the morning, volunteers of Jagran Manch had gathered at Majra Chowk for demonstration. 14.4.
The said mob was pacified by SDPO and Incharge, Police Station, Majra, however, the persons, who were demonstrating there, were again and again stressing that they will finish the person, who has enticed away the girl. Due to their activities, the police apprehended about the violence. As such, police force was requested to be
8
2025:HHC:23184 deputed from Police Lines, Nahan and Paonta Sahib. Those policemen were deputed at the house of the main accused Mohseen Khan, in village Kiratpur, in order to maintain law and order situation. 14.5. ASI Ashish Kumar further got recorded that he, along with other police officials, including HC Sandeep No.512, LC Gurpreet Kaur No.274, was also present there. At about 5.30 p.m., from Matak Majari side, the volunteers of Hindu Jagran Manch, including MLA Sukh Ram Chaudhary, MLA Rajeev Bindal, Manav Sharma, Sunil Gupta, Raj Kumar, Ashish Attri, Nand Lal, Indra, Alka, and other ladies and other persons on motorcycle, who were having dandas in their hands, were proceeding towards the house of Mohseen. 14.6. The Dy.SP, Paonta Sahib, had tried his level best to pacify them, but, they had not paid any heed to him. When, Dy.SP Paonta Sahib and SHO Majra were trying to pacify them, then, Manav Sharma and Sumit Gupta, who were also present in the said mob, were instigating the other persons, by saying that the police is not searching for the girl and that, they themselves had to
9
2025:HHC:23184 finish the person, who had enticed away the said girl. Meanwhile, the mob became aggressive. 14.7. Thereafter, someone from the persons belonging to Muslim community had pelted a stone, due to which, tension arose between the two communities and they started pelting stones on each other and also beating each other with dandas. Meanwhile, some of the persons from the mob had also started pelting stones on the police. 14.8. Due to pelting of stones, complainant sustained injuries over his head and forehead. A person, out of the mob, had also hit HC Sandeep with a danda on his head. Consequently, he sustained injuries.
Similarly, LC Gurpreet Kaur, No.274 had also sustained injuries, which were caused by the members of the mob. As such, a prayer has been made to take action. 15. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was entrusted to HC Pradeep Kumar No.209. During investigation, on 14.06.2025, HC Pradeep Kumar, No.209, I.O. Police Station Majra, at the instance of complainant ASI Ashish Kumar, visited the spot and spot
10
2025:HHC:23184 map was prepared. Statements of witnesses, under Section 180 of the BNSS, were recorded. 16. It has been found during the investigation that the agitated mob had prevented the police officials from performing their duties and beaten them. As such, Section 121 BNS was added, in this case. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was entrusted to SI/SHO Police Station, Majra. 17. On 14.06.2025, accused Sumit Gupta, son of Kishan Lal Gupta, Manav Sharma son of Shri Mahavir Sharma, Jai Prakash Pandey son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, and Raj Kumar son of Shri Amar Singh, were associated in the investigation and on finding their involvement, they were arrested at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, they were produced before the Doctor for medicolegal examination and their MLCs were obtained. 18. It is further case of the police that out of the agitated mob, one person had inflicted gandasi blow on the head of HC Sandeep Kumar. Due to the said blow, the cap worn by HC Sandeep Kumar got cut and he also sustained
11
2025:HHC:23184 deep injury over his head, which, as per MLC, is 7x2 c.m. long (ellipical shape). 19. It is the further case of the Police that had HC Sandeep Kumar not worn the cap, the said injury could have been dangerous to his life. As such, Section 109 of BNS was added in this case. 20. During the course of investigation, spot was also videographed. The accused persons, who were arrested, were produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, from where, they were remanded to police custody. 21.
It is the further case of the police that on 16.6.2025, C. Rijwan, Security Branch, Paonta Sahib, has produced the CD of videography and photographs. Those were analyzed minutely. One Sameer Khan, had also made available the footage of the CCTV camera installed in his house at Kiratpur, which was examined. The time of the same was found to be 10 minutes ahead of the actual time and the date was found to be 16.6.2025. 22. As per the CCTV footage, on 13.06.2025, at about 5.43.35 p.m., a suspicious person was noticed, who
12
2025:HHC:23184 had worn black coloured Tshirt and black shorts. He was having gandasa/farsa in his right hand. He had muffled his face with white coloured cloth. The said person was found to be joining the mob. He was followed by another person, who was having danda in his right hand. The said person had also worn the same type of clothes. These persons were found to be moving from Fatehpur towards the house of Mohseen at Kiratpur. Few persons were noticed in the CCTV footage, who were having dandas in their hands. Manav Sharma, was also found to be in the mob at about 5.45.15 p.m. He had worn long white Kurta Pajama, and his tuft of hair was also visible. The said CCTV footage was preserved and submitted to the SI/SHO. 23. As per the statement of HC Sandeep Kumar, the said persons were found to be Manav Sharma, Sumit Gupta, Raj Kumar and Nand Lal. Those persons were seen with the aggressive mob. 24. It is the further case of the police that the attack on the police appears to be at the instance of these persons. 13
2025:HHC:23184
25. On the basis of the above status report, filed on 17.6.2025, interim protection was granted to the applicants and the matter has been adjourned to
24.06.2025. 26.
On 24.6.2025, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the facts, which were mentioned in the status report, filed on 17.6.2025. In addition to this, it has been mentioned that both the suspicious persons, shown in the photographs, were having the danda, farsa/gandasa and stones, in their hands. 27. The information of those two persons is stated to be in the knowledge of the above four accused persons, who were arrested. The incident is stated to be communal riots. According to the further stand of the police, had the police been not intervened, then, they may have instigated the mob and burnt the house of Mohseen. 28. Highlighting the role of Manav Sharma, Jai Prakash @ Nand Lal, Raj Kumar and Sumeet Gupta, it is the case of the police that the said persons had hatched conspiracy and instigated the mob to proceed towards the house of Mohseen and due to this instigation, mob reached at
14
2025:HHC:23184 Fatehpur, where stones were pelted on the police. As per the stand taken by the police, since the above four persons were instigating the mob, to commit violence, Section 61(2) was added, in this case. 29. During investigation, the factum of tense situation in the area was apprised to District Magistrate, Sirmaur, so that the communal clashes may not occur. As such, District Magistrate, in order to maintain law and
order situation, has imposed Section 163 BNSS, in some of the villages of Majra, till 26.6.2025. 30. On the basis of the CCTV footage, on 18.6.2025, accused Solanki was identified. Search was made for him at Kala Amb area and he was enquired. As per the police, said accused Solanki, during the investigation, by the Police, disclosed that the person, who had muffled his face, is Raman Kumar, son of Veer Singh. The said Solanki was arrested on 18.6.2025 and he was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, from where, he was remanded to police custody for four days and thereafter, on 21.06.2025, he was remanded to judicial custody. 15
2025:HHC:23184
31. The Police has also mentioned, in the status report, that applicant Alka Rani, Ward Member Veherewala, Gram Panchayat Sainwal has not joined the investigation. However, said Alka Rani, along with other persons had lodged FIR No.99 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2) of the BNS. In the said complaint, she has alleged that a girl of village ‘X’ has been enticed away by a boy of a particular community. The police had assured to recover that girl till 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, all these persons reached at Fatehpur through Majra market, from where, they had proceeded towards the house of Mohseen. When the police tried to make them understand, then, the agitated persons had a scuffle with police. In the complaint, Alka Rani has alleged that she, as well as, her companions also sustained injuries. Consequently, she along with other persons were medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. 32. On the basis of the above facts, the role attributed to applicant Alka Rani is to flare up the communal riots. 16
2025:HHC:23184
33. Thereafter, Raman Kumar was identified and efforts were made to nab him. It has also been mentioned, in the status report, that applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, has joined the investigation and on 12.06.2025, Up Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Parduni had intimated him that a girl was missing and the age of the said girl was stated to be 18 years. 34. As per the status report, it has been apprised to Dr. Rajeev Bindal that a boy of Pipaliwala, had enticed away a Hindu girl. On 13.06.2025, he had been apprised that they are proceeding to Majara Chowk and requested him to come and help them.
Consequently, at about 5.00 p.m., he also reached at Majra Chowk, where, applicant Sukh Ram met him. When, they were present at Majra Chowk, then a mob consisting of 200 persons gathered there, however, those persons were not carrying any weapon, nor, anyone had muffled his face. 35. Manav Sharma of Hindu Jagran Manch was known to applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal and Sumit Gupta had also reached there. Jai Prakash was also there, but, he was in the other vehicle. 17
2025:HHC:23184
36. On 13.06.2025, the agitation, which was held in the morning at Majra, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, was not called, nor, he had any information regarding the said protest. When applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal was present at Fatehpur, then, few ladies came there, who had sustained injuries and those ladies told him that stones were pelted upon them. 37. Thereafter, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, Sukh Ram Chaudhary, Dy. S.P. and SDM gathered at Fatehpur. Thereafter, S.P. Sirmaur tried to pacify the mob, upon which, they had decided to assemble on 14.6.2025, at Majra Chowk and the mob had disbursed. 38. On the basis of the investigation, so conducted, the following facts have been pleaded in the status report: i) That on 13.06.2025, the person, who had covered his face and attacked HC Sandeep, he has been identified, but, he has not yet been arrested. The weapon of offence is to be recovered from the said person and it has to be enquired as to who had hatched the criminal conspiracy and who had provided the weapons, as well as, who had instigated them. 18
2025:HHC:23184 ii) During investigation, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, has disclosed that he had been informed by Geeta Ram, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Parduni, on 13.06.2025, with regard to the demonstration, by apprising him that one Muslim boy had enticed away a Hindu girl, due to which, there is a lot of resentment in the people. According to the police, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal has not contacted the family members of the girl, nor, obtained any information, nor, he had sympathized the family members of the girl.
He has simply gone there to instigate the mob. iii) During investigation, it was found that applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, had revealed that Manav Sharma is known to him and said Manav Sharma was also in the mob at Fatehpur. Thereafter, along with the mob, he has proceeded towards Kiratpur and as per the CCTV footage, Manav Sharma has instigated the mob. iv) During investigation, CDRs of mobile phone of applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal were obtained. On analysis, it was found that on 13.6.2025 and 14.06.2025, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal had talked to accused Raj Kumar, on
19
2025:HHC:23184 phone. Similarly, he has also talked with accused Jai Prakash. All these facts, have been highlighted to show that a conspiracy was hatched to commit the offence. v) On 18.6.2025, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, had addressed a rally and targetted a particular community. It is the further case that in the area of Police Station Majra, Section 163 BNSS was promulgated till 24.06.2025, so that, the law and order situation could be maintained, as, there is tension between two communities and in case, any, leader delivers provocative speech, then the law and
order situation may get worsened. vi) As per the investigation, on the social media, one video has got viral, in which, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, was apprising the mob, who had allegedly pelted stones on police by saying that “hum log wahan par dharna karenge or yeh SP sahab and SDM sahab ke samne ghoshna kar rahe hai kya Chaudhary Sukh Ram sehmat hai. To isme Paonta Vidhansabha v Nahan Vidhan Sabha dono Vidhan Sabha ke hum sab bhai bahan sab wahan par dharne par baithenge,
20
2025:HHC:23184 pathrav ke khilaf, police ki karwahi ke khilaf. Ab kal subah dharne par jayange ab SP Sahab kuchh kehna chahate ho to kahen.” vii) It is the case of the police that on the basis of the above address of applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, it has been proved that on 13.6.2025, the incident of stone pelting and attack on police had taken place, in which, three police personnel sustained injuries and thereafter on 14.06.2025, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal has announced to organize demonstration at 10.00 a.m., which clearly shows that the intention of applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal was to insist for a communal clashes. viii) During investigation, applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, had disclosed that on 13.06.2025, the mob was not having any weapon, whereas, according to the police, in the CCTV footage, it is clearly visible that some persons were having dandas in their hands and they had covered their faces with cloths. From this fact, it has been concluded that the aim of the mob was to cause losses, for which, they had come prepared. 21
2025:HHC:23184 ix) Applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, during investigation has disclosed that he had come to organize Dharna at Majra Chowk and thereafter, he had gone to Fatehpur, to join the mob. From this fact, it has also been concluded that his aim was only to instigate the mob. x) Lastly, it has been pleaded that on 13.6.2025, Manav Sharma, has also instigated the mob and applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, was member of the said mob. 39. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 8th July, 2025. On 8th July, 2025, the police has filed the supplementary status report by asserting the same facts. 40. Learned Advocate General on that day, fairly stated that the applicants have joined the investigation. 41.
On the basis of the above facts, it has been prayed by learned Advocate General that the applicants are not able to make out a case in their favour. 42. Highlighting the seriousness of the offences and its implications on the society at large, Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate General, has prayed that the applicants are not entitled to the relief, as claimed, in these applications. 22
2025:HHC:23184
43. It has also been highlighted by the learned Advocate General, that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to any relief, in that eventuality, stringent conditions, as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.754 of 2016, titled as Tehseen S. Poonawalla versus Union of India and Others, may kindly be imposed upon the applicants. 44. The arguments, so addressed by the learned Advocate General, in this case, have been rebutted by Mr. Sudhir Thakur and Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Senior Advocates, assisted by M/s. Adhiraj Thakur, Karun Negi, Anshul Attri, Ankit Chandel, Somesh Sharma and Chandresh Pal Vaidya, Advocates, on the ground that in the status reports, so filed, by the police, in this case, no specific role has been attributed to the applicants and according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants, the applicants have joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from them, nor, at their instance. 23
2025:HHC:23184
45. Highlighting the facts that the applicants are respectable persons of the society and having deep roots in the society, it has been argued that the applicants are entitled to the relief, as claimed in the applications, as no prayer has been made for their custodial interrogation. 46. All these facts, have been pleaded to impress upon the Court that the pretrial punishment is prohibited under the law. As such, a prayer has been made to allow the applications as prayed for. 47.
Applicants are permanent residents of the addresses as mentioned in the applications, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim orders are made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 48. Applicant Dr. Rajeev Bindal, and applicant Sukh Ram Chaudhary are elected representatives and other applicants are also having deep roots in the society. They have joined the investigation. There is no iota of evidence in the status reports, so filed, that the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation. 24
2025:HHC:23184
49. The role allegedly played by the applicants, in the commission of the alleged crime, would be proved during the trail. 50. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawala’s case supra, is concerned, directions were issued to the State and the preventive
measures/remedial
measures/punitive measures are to be taken up, by the State. In case of violation of the conditions, so imposed, by the Court, the applicants will have to face the consequences. As such, no benefit could be derived from the above decision, by the State. 51. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicants, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present applications, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicants. 52. Considering all these facts, the interim orders dated 17.06.2025, 18.06.2025 and 19.06.2025, passed by this Court, in all the five cases, are hereby made absolute. 25
2025:HHC:23184 Therefore, it is ordered that the applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No.97 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered, under Sections 299, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 115(2), 121(1), 109, 61(2) 118(2) of the BNS, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/ each, with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicants 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 appropriate application. 53. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
26
2025:HHC:23184 merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present applications. 54. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the applicants. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 17, 2025 (ps)