2025:HHC:19150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 450 of 2025 Reserved on: 04.06.2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 Sonu alias Ali ...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. Aashish Patial, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 19 of 2021, dated 28.01.2021, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 382, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 28.01.2021. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner for committing a crime. The petitioner is falsely implicated based on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19150 circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family, and his family is facing hardship due to the detention of the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Anuj Bharat, and Sonu @ Ali (present petitioner) were residing together. They were working with Sanjay Contractor. They were present in the room on 27.04.2021. Petitioner Sonu @ Ali told the informant and other persons that he had to go to his home. The informant told the petitioner that it was night and he should leave in the morning. Sonu went to Bharat and asked for the key to the motorcycle. Bharat told the petitioner that he would drop him off in the morning, but the petitioner picked up a quarrel with Bharat. He left the room and returned with an iron angle. He inflicted an injury on the head of Bharat. Other people tried to rescue Bharat; however, the petitioner inflicted 7-8 injuries with an iron angle 3 2025:HHC:19150 on the head of Bharat. He snatched the key to the motorcycle and mobile from Bharat and ran away. The police registered the F.I.R. and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner made a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of the iron angle. The post-mortem report shows that death had taken place due to a traumatic brain injury. The charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Court on 27.04.2021. As per the report of DNA analysis, blood found in the pants of the petitioner and the metallic bar contained the DNA of the deceased. Human hair was found on the metallic bar. The matter was listed on 13.06.2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. 15 witnesses have been examined, and 8 witnesses are yet to be examined. 3. I have heard Mr. Aashish Patial, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Aashish Patial, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. He was arrested on 28.01.2021. The prosecution failed to complete the evidence within a period of 4 2025:HHC:19150 four years. His right to a speedy trial is being violated. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hom Dei @ Shallu vs. State of H.P. 2005:HHC:13256 in support of his submission. 5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that there is no delay in the progress of the Trial. The witnesses are being examined. The trial is at the fag end, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 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, 5 2025:HHC:19150 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 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 6 2025:HHC:19150 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 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, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The 7 2025:HHC:19150 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A perusal of the status report shows that the incident was witnessed by the informant. He specifically stated that the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the deceased and demanded the keys to the motorcycle. When the deceased refused to hand over the keys, the petitioner went outside and brought a metallic bar with him. The petitioner inflicted repeated blows on the head of the deceased. The police arrested the petitioner. He made a disclosure statement and got recovered a metallic bar, 8 2025:HHC:19150 which was sent to FSL, and DNA of the deceased was found on it. DNA of the deceased was also found on the pants of the petitioner, which corroborates the informant’s version that the petitioner had inflicted injuries upon the deceased, leading to his death. The post-mortem report also showed that the cause of death was traumatic injury to the brain. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is connected to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The offence is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the nature of the penalty, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 12. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the accused is entitled to bail on the ground of violation of his right to a speedy trial. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Hom Dei @ Shallu (supra). 13. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law that the right to a speedy trial is an important right of the accused and in case of its violation, the accused is entitled to bail. However, delay has to be seen in each case, and it is to be determined whether the delay is attributable to the accused or 9 2025:HHC:19150 not. Further, in Hom Dei @ Shallu (supra), the prosecution had cited 51 witnesses out of whom only 16 witnesses were examined, and 31 witnesses were yet to be examined. Therefore, it was held that the chances of an early conclusion of the trial were bleak. 14. In the present case, the status report shows that 15 witnesses have been examined and 8 witnesses are yet to be examined. This shows that trial is at the fag end. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 13.06.2025. Hence, the plea that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial cannot be accepted. 15. Further, order sheets show that the adjournments were sought on behalf of the accused for consideration of the charge on 26.07.2022 and 30.07.2022, and thereafter the case could not be taken up due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer or the Presiding Officer being on leave. The act of the Court will not prejudice any person, including the prosecution. Therefore, bail cannot be granted to the petitioner due to the act of Court. 16. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to 10 2025:HHC:19150 approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. 17. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20th June, 2025 (ravinder)