Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 98 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.03.2025 Date of Decision: 25th March 2025. Saransh Soni ...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. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 222 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 25 of Arms Act registered with Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner merely 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) dropped Tanu at Bazaar and he returned home thereafter. He was not involved in any illegal activity. He was not present on the spot at the time of the incident. The petitioner had joined the investigation and he was arrested on 21.12.2024. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He has no criminal history. His marriage was solemnized on 12.12.2024. The petitioner’s father suffered a heart attack after the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner has to take care of his father and young wife. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information on 18.12.2024 that a fight had taken place in Kangra Bazaar and the injured were taken to Civil Hospital. The police went to verify the correctness of the information. The informant Rohit made a statement to the police that he was going to his home on 18.12.2024. He met his friends Mohit and Aman. He was talking to them when Tanu, his brother Manu, Nanu and Goldy reached the spot on two motorcycles. Tanu and Manu were armed with swords. Nanu had a ‘tessi’ and a baseball bat. Goldy had an iron pipe, which had a gear-like contraption welded on it. All of them attacked Atul. The informant tried to save him. Monu attacked the informant with the sword. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) Tanu inflicted a blow on the informant’s hand. They also gave beatings to Atul. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. Police seized the various articles during the investigation. The petitioner is a friend of Tanu. Tanu had called him to Sabji Mandi on 18.12.2024. The petitioner reached the spot on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP40-D-6558. Tanu went to the place of the incident on the petitioner’s motorcycle. The petitioner had left the spot before the incident; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The status report shows that the petitioner had left the spot before the incident and he has only carried his friend Tanu to the spot. There is insufficient material to connect him with the commission of crime; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner knew about the fact that his friend was carrying a deadly weapon which was to be used for the commission of a crime. He had abetted the commission of crime by aiding the transportation of Tanu to the spot. The offence is heinous and the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. 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 as under 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 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) 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] .] 8. 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) 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 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that Tanu was armed with a sword, which was used by him to cause injuries to the informant and his brother. The petitioner had transported him to the place of the incident on his motorcycle. The petitioner would have been aware of the fact that his friend was carrying a sword- a deadly weapon. He had transported Tanu to the spot and in this manner, he aided the commission of a crime by Tanu; hence, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime is established. 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7727 ) 12. The investigation is continuing and the petitioner can influence the investigation in case of his release on bail. 13. The status report shows that injuries by sharp-edged weapons were caused to the informant and his brother. The petitioner had helped in the transportation of one of the accused Tanu and hence, the petitioner is prima facie, guilty of abetting the commission of the offence by Tanu @ Taranjit. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and how they were caused, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 14. No other point was urged. 15. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 25th March,2025 Judge (Saurav Pathania)