2025:HHC:17890 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 608 of 2025 Reserved on: 28.05.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025 Guman Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the Petitioner : M/s Naresh Sharma and Ajay Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner is required in F.I.R. No. 18 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 132, 121(1), 74 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act) at Police Station 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17890 Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do with the commission of offence. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petitioner surrendered before this Court, and he was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 20.3.2025. The State was directed to file a status report, and a notice of the petition was also issued to the informant. 3. The State has filed a status report asserting that the informant was present in her office on 15.03.2025 at about 12 noon. The petitioner visited her office, and the informant asked him about the reason for his visit. The petitioner enquired why the informant had not surveyed his house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. He started banging the table with his fist. The informant asked the petitioner to listen to her; however, the petitioner threw away the articles lying in the office and Duptta of the informant to the side. When the informant tried to pick up her Duptta, the petitioner kicked and dragged her. He also gave her beatings. The informant shouted, and Shivang reached the spot. The petitioner slapped and kicked the informant in 3 2025:HHC:17890 Shivang’s presence. He also abused her in the name of her cast. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The statement of the informant was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the injuries sustained by the informant could have been caused during a scuffle with nails. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. A reply/objection was filed by the informant asserting that the petitioner has committed a grave offence. The informant is a public servant, and she is living in fear due to the actions of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier picked up a quarrel with the Panchayat officials. Therefore, it was prayed that the interim bail granted by the Court be cancelled. 5. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply was filed. 6. I have heard M/s Naresh Sharma and Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4 2025:HHC:17890 7. Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 8. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had beaten a government servant and he is likely to repeat the offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. 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:17890 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] .] 11. 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 6 2025:HHC:17890 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 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: 7 2025:HHC:17890 “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 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) 12. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 13. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner had entered the office of the informant, banged on her table, threatened, beat and abused her by using her caste name. These offences are serious, but they do not justify pre- 8 2025:HHC:17890 trial detention, especially when the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. 15. It was asserted in the reply filed by the informant that the petitioner had indulged in a similar activity in the past, however, no copy of the F.I.R. was filed along with the reply to establish this fact. Therefore, prima facie, the bail cannot be denied because the petitioner had indulged in the commission of a similar offence in the past. 16. It was submitted that the informant is living under the fear of the petitioner, and the petitioner would repeat such an offence in case of his release on bail. However, nothing was mentioned in the reply that the petitioner had intimidated the informant after he was released on an interim bail. Therefore, the informant’s apprehension is not justified. Further, her apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 17. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the punishment provided, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 9 2025:HHC:17890 18. Consequently, the order dated 20.03.2025 is made absolute on the following conditions: (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned, and the Trial Court, and he will furnish his local address to the concerned Police Station. (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 10 2025:HHC:17890 21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 05th June, 2025 (ravinder)