1 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP (M) Nos.: 266 to 275 of 2025 Decided on : 20 th March, 2025 1. CrMP (M) No. 26 6 of 2025 Hem Lata …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 2. CrMP (M) No. 267 of 2025 Hem Raj …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 3. CrMP (M) No. 268 of 2025 Luder Mani …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 4. CrMP (M) No. 269 of 2025 Om Chand …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 2 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) 5. CrMP (M) No. 270 of 2025 Harnam Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 6. CrMP (M) No. 271 of 2025 Beer Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 7. CrMP (M) No. 272 of 2025 Chet Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 8. CrMP (M) No. 273 of 2025 Bhawneshwar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 9. CrMP (M) No. 274 of 2025 Tara Chand …Applicant Versus 3 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. 10. CrMP (M) No. 275 of 2025 Fateh Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s) : Applicant(s) in person with Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State, in all the bail applications. Respondent No.2-complainant, in person. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The above-noted applicants, by surrendering themselves to the custody of this Court, have filed these applications, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 4 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of releasing them, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.13 of 2025, dated 14th February, 2025, registered, under Sections 3(1)(m), (p), (q), (r), (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been named as accused persons, in the above-noted case, at the instance of the complainant. 3. It is the case of the applicants that the present case is the counter-blast, as applicant-Hem Lata, in Cr.MP(M) No.266 of 2025, had filed CWP No.4788 of 2024, before this Court, which was decided on 17.06.2024, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi to take the final decision upon the complaint of the petitioner. When, needful was not done, then, the petitioner had filed COPC No.708 of 2024, before this Court, which was finally decided on 19.11.2024. 5 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) 4. As per the applicant, thereafter, he had again filed CWP No.15137 of 2024, before this Court, which was finally decided on 12.12.2024, by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi to pass appropriate order against the Pradhan, as well as, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. 5. The applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 6. Since, the applicants have moved the present bail applications, by surrendering themselves to the custody of this Court, on 17th February, 2025, as such, all the accused were granted interim bail and the State/police was directed to file the status report. 7. Consequently, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 14.02.2025, a complaint was received from the office of Superintendent of Police Mandi, through email, mentioning therein, the following facts:- “That I was elected as Pradhan Gram Panchayat Lot in 2021 and I took oath on 24/1/2021. I belong to Scheduled Caste (Koli) Family and all the above mentioned 6 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) persons belong to Rajput families. All the above persons feel inferior and disgraceful themselves on caste basis from the same day of my oath. All of them have threatened me on first day of my becoming Pradhan that they would not let me serve as Pradhan in the Panchayat as I belong to Koli family. All of them behave and practise untouchability against me and openly have been threatening me that they would must get dismissed me from the post of Pradhan in some manner in future. Since then, all the above persons have been committing some conspiracies against me in connivance with each other 1 explain as follows point wise: (1). That above Hem Lata filed a false complaint against me in which many false allegations were made which was received in the Distt. Panchayat Officer at Bhuili on 6/9/2024. She made following false allegations against me which are as under (a). Hem Lata filed a false complaint that I don't take her into confidence for development works for village as well as villagers. (b). Hem Lata filed a false complaint that I and Secretary Gram Panchayat don't take her into confidence for any development work. (c). Hem Lata filed a false complaint that following mustrols are not being issued for Road from Jaryad to Bakharyar SDRF (17/12/23 to 31/12/23) Rs. 180000/-Road from Reshan to Dudhagar SDRE (17/12/23 to 31/12/23) Rs.150000/- Road from Jaryad to Bakharyar GPDP 15th fe (1/10/23 10 31/10/23) Rs.71000/-Road from Reshan to Ghainitungar GPDP 15th fe (17/12/23 to 31/12/23) Rs. 100000/-Road from Jansovra to uppat Roshan SDRF (17/12/23 to 31/12/25) Rs. 150000 Also she filed a false complaint that on the basis of discrimination I am not inssing ontrols 7 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) from construction of road from Suharn to Reshan SDRF, for construction of Drain and boundary wall from Jansovra to uppar Reshan, 30 cement bag, 40 feet sand and 140 feet concrete and completion of community building Lot. (d). Hem Lats also made a false complaint that I am not issuing mustrols given to me 2-3 years before. (c). Hem Lata also made a false complaint that sand, concrete and stones are being uprooted with the help of JCB whereas forged bills are being paid. (1). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that I have cut trees of Devdaar. Kail & Rai for preparation of shuttering from forest without taking permission. (g). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that I have destroyed a rain shelter gate and a public pacca path. (h). Hem Lata also filed false complaint that forged bills have been cashed/paid for illegal cutting of trees. (i). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that ice was removed from road from Chatruhan to Bakhyar with the help of JCB whereas mustrols were issued to Narender (j). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that stones were uprooted and prepared by labour for construction of Check Dam at Kadashihal Nala & Panda Nala and forged bills were cashed/paid (k). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that double payment. was made for construction of Community Irrigation Tank at Rachhora and rule for 60:40 ratio was infringed. (1). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that date on mustrol issued for construction of Irrigation Tank Amar Singh has been wrongly mentioned as 30/1/2024 whereas the real date of issue was 13/2/24 (m). Hem Lata also filed a false complaint that uregulations are being committed for construction of Sarai/Community Bhawan Village Lot A show cause notice was issued 8 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) by the Distt. Panchayat Officer Mandi, Distt. Mandi, to me vide No. 11919-24 dated 25/11/2024 and enquiry was conducted against me on the basis of above mentioned a number of false complaints. I submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 7/12/2024 to the Distt. Panchayat Officer Mandi, H.P. An enquiry was conducted by the DPO, Mandi, H.P. and the statements were recorded. In enquiry, Hem Lata was called on 26/9/2024, 4/10/2024,15/10/2024 But she did not appear and demanded to change enquiry committee or members After proper enquiry, all the allegations made by Hem Lata spon me were found false and baseless by the Enquiry Committee. All these allegations were made by Hem Lata against me in order to restrain me from performing my duties smoothly as a Pradhan. 2. That I hand over any work for development of Village then Hem Raj Husband of Hem Lata goes on spot and interferes in that work and he himself gets worked on spot without presence of Hem Lata. He openly threatens me not to interfere and also not to hold any bill presented by him. He openly threatens me that he would not let me work in Panchayat as Pradhan because a Koli could not be their Pradhan. He threatens me to get, dismissed de removed me from the post of Pradhan at each and every cost. He also threatens me that he is competent to 6dfill any mustrol and also to mark presence of any persons and I would face consequnces if1 object or withhold any bill presented by him for payment from Govt funds and if 1 interferes or make any enquiry. Hem Raj has visited many times in Gram Panchayat and threatenad me matry times to get me removed or dismissed from post of Pradhan on any cost. 3. On 52/2025, I was called by 9 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) the Enquiry Officer in Panchayat Ghar Lot and after enquiry in. Panchayat Ghar Lot, I was going my house along with my brother then Hem Raj and all the above mentioned persons blocked my path and started quarrelling with me and humilating, intimidating me publicly using disgraceful, filthy language by calling me untouchable Koli Pradhan and started threatening me that they would made many false different types of complaints against me and also procure many types of false, fabricated evidences and would must take me behind the bars. They threatened to teach me a lesson that no one Koli would come forward to be elected as Pradhan in future because the post of Pradhan is deserved for Rajpoots only. They also threatened me to face dire consequences if continue as Pradhan in Gram Panchayat Lot They threatened me to leave post of Pradhan. All the above persons have given false evidences against me in order to defame me and also with purpose to be convicted or dismissed or removed from post of Pradhan and to send me behind the bars. It is pertinent to mention here that no one of the above mentioned persons was called or summoned for giving any evidence in enquiry on 5/2/2025 which clears that they are interested persons. They gave written evidence without appearing before the enquiry officer from outside in favour of Hem Lata without any summon and came to help her and to threaten me and remained present outside on road for blocking my path and quarrelling, threatening with dire consequences etc. Hem Lata has been filing different types of false complaints again and again one after the other and has been trying ber best to get removed or dismissed me from post of Pradhan with the help of above 10 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) mentioned persons by tendering false evidences which is covered under the aforesaid sections of SC/ST(P.O.A) Act as well as under BNS All the above mentioned allegations are covered under aforesaid sections of SC/ST/POA) Act and all are non- bailable and cognizable offences. It is, therefore, requested that a legal action may kindly be taken and FIR under aforesaid sections under SC/ST(P.O.A) Act as well as other appropriate sections of BNS be registered against all the above mentioned persons so that they be tried in the competent Court. 8. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the FIR in question. Thereafter, as directed by the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, the investigation of the case was handed over to Dy. SP Headquarter. 9. During investigation of the case, on 19.02.2025, complainant-Narotam Singh has also been associated and spot was visited and spot map was prepared. His statement, under Section 180 of the BNSS, was recorded. He has also disclosed that applicant-Hem Lata had also made a complaint against him with District Panchayat Officer. In this regard, on 5.2.2025, applicant-Hem Lata had called Fatta Ram, Bhuvneshwar, Harnam, Ber Singh, Hem Raj and Hem Lata in Panchayat, where, the inquiry 11 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) was going on. When, the proceedings were finished at about 4-4.30 p.m., the complainant was on his way to his house, then the above-named persons were found standing near the old building of Gram Panchayat Lot. They had started abusing him and saying that they will not spare the Pradhan and they will get him suspended. They have also restrained his path by saying that “Koli Pradhan Ko Nahin Rehne Denge”. 10. According to the further case of the police that when the matter was enquired from Jai Krishan, Panchayat Chowkidar, he has shown his ignorance in this regard. Complainant has also apprised the police that he has now been suspended. 11. On 19.02.2025, all the applicants have joined the investigation. Thereafter, the requisite correspondence was made with the BDO, Block Lot, to get the requisite documents. 12. In this case, complainant has also been impleaded as respondent No.2. 13. Today, respondent No.2 is present in person and stated that he does not want to file any objection and 12 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) the stand, which has been taken by the State, be read as his stand. 14. The Police filed the status report today, according to which, all the applicants had joined the investigation on 28.02.2025 and 15.03.2025. The statements of brother, nephew and uncle of complainant were recorded. The applicants thereafter were released on interim bail. 15. As per the status report, the applicants have joined the investigation and it is not the case of the police that their custodial interrogation is required. 16. In this case, the applicants have disclosed about the litigation, which was initiated by one of the applicants i.e. Hem Lata. However, the above stand is not liable to be considered, at this stage. 17. At the time of deciding the bail application, the detailed discussion about the evidence, so collected by the Investigating Officer, during the investigation, should be avoided, as, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, or, to the case of the accused persons. 13 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) 18. Even otherwise, the role, allegedly played by the applicants, in the commission of the alleged crime, will be proved, during the trial and the bail applications cannot be rejected merely as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 19. In this case, no apprehension has been expressed by the police, nor request for custodial interrogation of the applicant was made. 20. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case, in their favour, for releasing them, on bail. 21. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed and interim order, 17th February, 2025, passed in all the bail applications, is made absolute, subject to conditions No.7(i), 7(iii) to 7(x). 22. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as, these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications. 14 ( 2025:HHC:7041 ) 23. The applicants are directed to move regular bail applications, when charge-sheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 24. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application(s), in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by any of the applicants. ( Virender Singh ) Judge March 20, 2025 ( ps )