2025:HHC:39498 _________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 2128 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Date of Decision 22.11.2025 Chetan .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent- State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 13 of 2025, dated 20.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 238(a) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The learned Courts below dismissed the regular bail application on the ground that many 2 2025:HHC:39498 cases are pending against the petitioner, but the pendency of the cases is no ground for rejection of the bail application. The petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. He cannot be kept behind the bar indefinitely. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that she had gone to her relative’s house on 18.01.2025 at 5:30 p.m. She returned on 19.01.2025 at 9:15 a.m. and found that the lock was missing, and the almirah was open. Her jewellery and articles were missing. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. They arrested the petitioner based on secret information. The petitioner made a disclosure statement and got recovered some of the stolen articles. A charge sheet was filed before the Court. The matter was listed for checking of copies on 18.09.2025. Sixteen FIRs are pending against the petitioner in various Police Stations. Hence, the status report. 3 2025:HHC:39498 4. I have heard Mr G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Learned Courts below dismissed the bail applicaitons on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, which is improper because the petitioner was not convicted of the commission of any offence; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashent Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences in the past. Sixteen F.I.Rs have been registered against the petitioner at various Police stations. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. 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. 4 2025:HHC:39498 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i)Broad principles for the grant of bail 56.InGudikantiNarasimhuluv.High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of 5 2025:HHC:39498 society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhativ.State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised based on well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words <reasonable grounds for believing= instead of <the evidence= which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a 6 2025:HHC:39498 judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkarv.Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkarv.Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. …It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other 7 2025:HHC:39498 circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii)nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Deviv. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumarv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singhv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35.While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when 8 2025:HHC:39498 the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the petitioner made a disclosure statement, which led to the discovery of various articles. The informant identified them as stolen articles. The police also seized the foot impression from the spot, which matched the foot impression of the shoe worn by the petitioner at the time of his arrest. These circumstances, prima facie, show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 331(4) of BNS. 11. The status report further shows that sixteen F.I.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner in various Police Stations, which means that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of 9 2025:HHC:39498 criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs 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. Bail should not be generally granted to an accused with criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 12. Therefore, the learned Court below had rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of his criminal antecedents. 13. Copies of the order-sheets show that a charge was framed on 25.08.2025 and the matter was listed for prosecution’s evidence on 18.09.2025. The evidence has not been completed, and only statements of the informant and HHC Budhi Signh were recorded. 14. Section 480(6) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 reads that if, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of any person accused of any non bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from date first fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody 10 2025:HHC:39498 during the whole of the period be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate unless for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Magistrate otherwise requires, therefore, the petitioner will have a right to approach the learned Magistrate for seeking bail in terms of Section 437(6) of BNS. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court in terms of Section 437(6) of BNS. 16. No other point was urged. 17. In view of the above, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. 18. 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 22nd November 2025 (ravinder)