Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 14 of 2025 Reserved on: 02.06.2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 Mast Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Complainant : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 79/2024 dated 31.12.2024 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC&ST Act’) at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) informant filed a false complaint to settle his personal scores with the petitioner. The petitioner is a government servant and is posted as a Chowkidar in the Forest Department. The petitioner has no criminal background. He is a law-abiding citizen and would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. He will comply with the directions issued by this Court; hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant had made a complaint to the police, stating that he had taken a loan of ₹ 90,000/- from the accused/petitioner in January 2024. The informant returned ₹ 20,000/-, and this fact was acknowledged by the petitioner/accused in the presence of Ex-Pradhan-Telu Ram. The petitioner/accused had taken a blank cheque as security. The petitioner/accused forcibly snatched the vehicle of the informant on 03.12.2024. He threatened the informant with death. He asked the informant to remove the tyre and keep it in his home. He snatched the key and told the informant that he would not return the vehicle in case the money was not repaid. He also threatened to fill lakhs of rupees in the security cheque and file a complaint against the informant. The matter was reported to the police. The 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-85-1269 and handed it over to the informant. FIR No. 13/2017 dated 22.02.2017 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Shillai. The petitioner was adhering to the orders passed by the Court and was joining the investigation; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the informant. 4. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The dispute between the parties is regarding the return of the loan. The status report shows that the petitioner is joining the investigation. The police have already recovered the vehicle, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) had used caste-based words against the informant. The petitioner can intimidate the informant and the witnesses in case of his release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the informant, submitted that the petitioner/accused had threatened the informant by brandishing a darat. He had forcibly snatched the informant’s vehicle. The offence committed by the accused is heinous, therefore, she 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. 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) 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] .] 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: 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) “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) 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, 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) 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 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. A perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute between the parties is regarding the repayment of the loan taken by the informant. The petitioner/accused snatched the informant’s vehicle, which was recovered by the police and handed over to the informant. It was mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had used the caste-based words, however, the nature of the words used and the place where the words were used were not 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) mentioned and it is prima facie doubtful that the words were uttered in a public place within the public view which is necessary to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC&ST Act. The petitioner is a government servant. He has joined the investigation as per the status report. The police have not stated any reason for the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, his pre-trial detention is not justified. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses and the informant in case of his release on bail. This submission is not supported by the conduct of the petitioner. This Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner on 02.01.2025, and no complaint of any threat has been received so far. Further, the apprehension of intimidation can be removed by imposing conditions, and this is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 02.01.2025 is made absolute till the disposal of the petition, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so by means of a written hukamnama. 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:18167 ) (ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending a visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 16. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th June, 2025 (saurav pathania)