1 2026:HHC:29941 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP (M) No.  :  2209  of 2025 Reserved on :     20.07.2026 Decided on      :     21.07.2026 Uploaded on    :     21.07.2026 Ashoni Kanwar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.S.   Chandel,   Senior Advocate,   with   Mr. Shivam Gupta, and Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick,   Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate   General   with   Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Ashoni Kanwar has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), as, she is apprehending her arrest, in  a case arising out of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29941 FIR No.27 of 2020, dated 08.03.2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120­B of the Indian Penal Code  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, she has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as, she has no concern with the crime in question. According to her, she is the trustee of Manav Bharti Charitable Trust and under the said Trust, Manav Bharti University has been established. 3. As per the applicant, she has no role to play in the admission of students in Manav Bharti University, as, the process of admission and other related affairs of the University   are   managed   by   the   Vice   Chancellor,   who further   delegates   the   same   to   the   Registrar/Deputy Registrar etc. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that the University has also made certain complaints to the Police Station Dharampur, with regard to the act of maligning the name of University, by vested interests, by giving forged and fabricated certificates, in the name of Manav Bharti University. However, no action has been taken by them. 3 2026:HHC:29941 5. According   to   the   applicant,  nothing   is   to   be recovered from the applicant and the story is also stated to be self contradictory. She is innocent and has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime, in question. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigating  agency,  in  the  present  case,  has  made  no effort to serve the notice upon the applicant. The applicant is coming to India, on emergency Travel Certificate, as her passport has been revoked and it is difficult for her to travel to India to assist the investigating agency. 7. Highlighting the fact that the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 08.08.2025 and 11.08.2025, has ordered   to   keep   the   NBWs   and   the   lookout   circular   in abeyance. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground   of   parity,   as,   her   co­accused   has   already   been released   on   bail,   by   this   Court,   vide   order   dated 18.11.2020. 8. Along   with   the   application,   order   dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla has been annexed. 4 2026:HHC:29941 9. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein, that on 08.03.2022, HC Rakesh   Kumar   No.104,   Police   Station,   Dharampur, brought   a   complaint,   which   was   addressed   to   Director General   of   Police   H.P.,   by   Chairman   H.P.   Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission, Shimla­ 9, mentioning the following facts:­ “CONFIDENTIAL, HIMACHAL PRADESH PRIVATE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS REGULATORY   COMMISSION   Happy   Nest Building,   Kagnadhar,   Below   BCS,   Shimla­ 171009 Phone No. 91 177 2673664, 2673665, TeleFax   91­177­2673663   Email­   secy­   perc hp@nic.in No. HPPERC/28/MBU Vol III / 2013 1466 Dated 16 / 2017 From The Chairman H.P. Private   Educational   Institutions   Regulatory Commission, Shimla 9, To The Director General of Police Himachal Pradesh, Shimla 2 Subject: Issue regarding 103 Degrees / Diplomas issued by Manav Bharti University, Laddo, Sultanpur, Distt. Solan (HP) which were found to be fake on verification. Sir, I am directed to submit that this Commission has been formed with an objective providing a regulatory mechanism in the State and   for  working   as   an   interface   between   the State   Government   and   Central   Regulatory Bodies   for   ensuring   appropriate   standards   of admission, teaching examination, research and protection of interest of students in the Private Educational   Institutions   and   for   matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Commission   received   a   request   from   the Directorate of Higher Education on 06.01.2017 for verification of 103 degrees diplomas issued by   the   Manav   Bharti   University   in   various disciplines   (Copy   along   with   the   list   of 5 2026:HHC:29941 candidates and their particulars as Annexure­I is   enclosed   for   kind   perusal). The   matter   for verification of degrees/diplomas was taken up with   the   Registrar,   Manav   Bharti   University, Solan vide this office letter No. HPPERC 28 MBU­ Vol­III/2016­3813   dated   03.03.2017   (copy enclosed). But   the   University   in   its   response dated   10.03.2017   denied   having   issued   any documents with respect to these 103 degrees/ diplomas (copy enclosed as Annexure­II). Your kind attention is drawn to the fact that from the bare perusal of the degrees/diplomas enclosed it is evident that the same have been issued by Manav Bharti University, Solan. However, from the refusal of issuance of these documents by the University it has questioned the sanctity of these   degrees/diplomas. Therefore,   there   is sufficient   incriminating   material   which   shows that the degrees/diplomas in question are not genuine. Hence,   a   high   level   investigation   is required to be done as it is a serious issue. You are therefore requested to look into the matter and   direct   a   high   ranking   officer   of   your department to investigate the matter in order to reveal the truth behind the issue and thereafter take   action   in   accordance   with   law   This Commission   will   extend   all   kinds   of   possible assistance   to   the   investigating   officer   in   the matter.” 10. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   the   police registered   the   above   mentioned   FIR,   and   the   criminal machinery swung into motion. 11. During   investigation,   it   was   found   that   the complaint was signed by the then Secretary, H.P. Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission, Shimla. 6 2026:HHC:29941 Initially investigation was conducted by SI Sehdev Singh, Inspector/SHO,   Police   Station,   Dharampur. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to the SIT. 12. After completion of the investigation, police, in the   present   case,   has   filed   the   charge­sheet,   against accused Pramod Kumar, Raj Kumar  Rana, Manu Singh Jamwal and Krishan Kumar Singh. 13. During investigation by the SIT, on 24.09.2020, the documents produced by Roshan Lal, Clerk, from the office of Director Higher Education, Shimla were taken into possession. Those   documents   were   degrees/diplomas, along   with   noting   sheets,   as   well   as   the   documents submitted by the students. The persons, in whose names, the   documents   were   issued,   were   associated   and   those degrees   were   taken   into   possession. The   specimen signatures   and   specimen   handwriting   of   100   fictitious students were obtained. 14. It has also been mentioned in the status report that as per the report of SFSL, it has been found that the business of forged degree was done by main accused Raj Kumar   Rana   and   Sarika   and   they   investigated   accused 7 2026:HHC:29941 Pramod   Kumar,   Sheeshpal   Khushmit   Ankit,   Naveen Mahajan and Shiwani etc. Accused Krishan Kumar Singh, who   was   working,   as   Registrar   has   put   his   forged signatures, over the degree. He himself got issued a forged degree of M.Sc. Anatomy, in his favour and himself signed the same. 15. It is the further case of the police that applicant Ashoni Kanwar is wife of main accused Raj Kumar Rana and as per the SIT, accused Raj Kumar Rana, in the year 2006, constituted Manav Bharati Charitable Trust (MBCT) and got the Trust registered with Sub­Registrar Solan. As per the documents obtained from the office of Tehsildar, Solan, the Chairman/main trustee was Raj Kumar Rana and he has nominated his wife, applicant Ashoni Kanwar, daughter Aina Rana and father in­law Dharambir Singh, as member of the Trust. 16. It has also been found, in the investigation, that on 24.09.2009, main accused Raj Kumar Rana, obtained 30 bigha land, out of 35­4 bigha land from his wife Ashoni Kanwar (applicant) and obtained the said land on lease for 30 years @ Rs.50,000/­ per month. Thereafter, accused 8 2026:HHC:29941 Raj Kumar Rana has established Manav Bharat University on the said land. He was responsible for the management of   the   same. As   per   the   Himachal   Pradesh   Private University Act, 2009, minimum 50 bigha land is required for   establishment   of   the   University,   whereas,   Manav Bharati University, has only 30 bigha land in Village Lado Sultanpur. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar Rana hatched a conspiracy and concealed the facts and shown the land in   village   Kehnoot,   which   is   at   a   distance   of   50­60 kilometers from village Lado and got established the private University. 17. During   investigation,   it   has   been   found   that degree of ‘Doctor of Philosophy in Education’ issued in the name of applicant Ashoni Kanwar, also seems to be forged, as, her name was not figured in the list of the students, to whom, the degree was issued. 18. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   the applicant has not joined the investigation  and as such, notices, under Section 160 Cr.PC, were issued against her, on the following addresses:­ i) C/o   Manav   Bharati   University   (MBCT),   Lad Kanwar Sultanpur, District Solan, H.P.; 9 2026:HHC:29941 ii) D/o   Dharambir   Singh   R/o   Vill. Sangnahi, Tehsil Amb, District Una; iii) W/o Raj Kumar Ran, R/o Village & PO Kurk Jgir, Tehsil & District Karnal, Haryana; iv) D/o   Shri   Dharambir   Singh,   R/o   9/8   Street No.1,   Sardarpura,   Tehsil   Girwa   Udaipur Rajsthan; and v) C/o   Madhav   Bharati   University,   District Pindwara, Sirohi, Rajasthan. 19. Thereafter, proceedings to declare the applicant as proclaimed offender, were initiated and on 04.01.2022, she has been declared, as proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the lookout circular was issued. Her passport were got revoked. Thereafter, the efforts were made to know the whereabouts of the applicant and it was found that as per the   information   provided   by   Assistant   Director International   Police   Cooperation   Cell,   New   Delhi,   her address   was   found   to   be   909/36­46   Cowper   Street Parramatta NSW. Red Corner Notice were also got issued against her. 20. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10 2026:HHC:29941 21. Applicant   is   seeking   a   direction   to   the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS, to release her on   bail,   in   the   event   of   her   arrest,   in   case   FIR,   as mentioned   above. The   relief   has   been   sought   on   the ground that her co­accused has already been released, on bail, whereas, the police has taken the defence that the notices were issued against her, under Section 160 Cr.PC, on   the   addresses,   as   mentioned,   in   the   status   report, reproduced above. When, the police has come to know about   the   Australian   address,   as   per   letter   dated 24.08.2021 issued by CBI NCB­India, Interpol New Delhi, the status report is totally silent about the efforts made by the   Police   to   get   the   applicant   deport/bring   back   from Australia. 22. Admittedly, the applicant has been declared as proclaimed   offender,   but,   compelling   a   person   to   put appearance, by taking coercive methods, as, taken by the police, is only to ensure her presence, before the I.O., so that the trial against her could be proceeded. It is the further case of the applicant that her passport was revoked and thereafter, she applied for emergency travel certificate, 11 2026:HHC:29941 copy of which, has been annexed with the application, as Annexure P­1. Even, as per the order dated 11.08.2025, the learned Special Judge PMLA, Shimla, has also ordered to keep the look out circular and NBWs, issued against the applicant, in abeyance, enabling her to come back to India. 23. It   has   been   highlighted   by   the   learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State that the notices, under Section 160 Cr.PC, were issued on the addresses, as mentioned, in the status report. The said arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, are devoid of merit, as, she was not in India and was residing in   Australia,   then,   the   knowledge   of   the   proceedings, cannot   be   attributed   to   the   applicant,   merely,   on   the ground that the notices, under Section 160 Cr.PC, were issued   at   the   addresses,   as   mentioned,   in   the   status report. Admittedly, those addresses are not of Australia, where the applicant was found to be residing, as per the information received on 24.08.2021. 24. In this case, prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant has been declared, as proclaimed offender, as such, she is not entitled to the 12 2026:HHC:29941 relief, as claimed, in the application. The said arguments are   devoid   of   any   merit,   as,   declaring   the   applicant   as proclaimed offender, does not bar her to seek the relief, as claimed, in the application. 25. In   this   regard,   the   decision   of   the   Hon’ble Supreme Court, in  Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024, titled   as  Asha   Dubey   versus   The   State   of   Madhya Pradesh,  has   been   relied   upon,   by   the   learned   senior counsel appearing for the applicant. Relevant paras­8 and 9 of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail,   in   the   event   of   the   declaration   under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering   the   application   for   the   grant   of anticipatory bail. 9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against,   this   Court   will   have   to   see   the circumstances   of   the   case,   nature   of   the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to   state   that   it   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of anticipatory   bail,   on   the   condition   that   the appellant   shall   cooperate   with   the   further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the  respondents  to  seek cancellation of  bail that   has   been   granted,   in   the   event   of   a violation   of   the   conditions   which   are   to   be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived threats against the witnesses.” 13 2026:HHC:29941 26. It would also be profitable, for this Court, to rely upon   the   decision   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in Siddharth   versus   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   &   Anr., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676. Relevant para­10 to 12, of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “10. We may note that personal liberty is an important   aspect   of   our   constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during   investigation   arises   when   custodial investigation   becomes   necessary   or   it   is   a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If   arrest   is   made   routine,   it   can   cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self­ esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond   or   disobey   summons   and   has,   in fact,   throughout   cooperated   with   the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 11. We are, in fact, faced with a situation where   contrary   to   the   observations   in Joginder Kumar versus State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, how a police officer has to deal with a scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a prerequisite formality to take  the  charge­ sheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 CrPC. We consider such a course misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 CrPC. 14 2026:HHC:29941 12. In the present case when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed   and   he   has   been   roped   in   after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the charge­sheet is taken on   record. We   may   note   that   the   learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial Court.” 27. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Suresh Babu versus State of U.P. and another, reported in  2022 Supreme (All) 653,  has also taken the similar view. Relevant paras­6 to 9, of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “6. As per section 438 Cr.P.C. the anticipatory bail   application   may   be   filed   either   before sessions court or before High Court inasmuch as   both   the   aforesaid   courts   are   having   a concurrent jurisdiction. Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that if any anticipatory bail application is filed, either it may be rejected forthwith or any interim order may be passed. In   other   words   if   the   court   wants   to   know some information from the other side, the case may   be   posted   for   another   date   and   if   the applicant   has   got   prima   facie   case   and   his apprehension of arrest appears to be bonafide in a case where the allegations prima facie do not   corroborate   with   material   available   on record   may   grant   interim   anticipatory   bail. However, in the present case the proclamation u/s   82   Cr.P.C.   has   been  issued   during   the pendency of the application. Apex Court in re: Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 15 2026:HHC:29941 730,   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   vs.   Pradeep Sharma   reported   in   (2014)   2   SCC   171   and Prem   Shanker   Prasad   vs.   State   of   Bihar (Criminal   Appeal   No.   1209   of   2021)   has imposed bar to entertain such application if filed by the proclaimed offender. In the present case   at   the   time   of   filing   anticipatory   bail application the applicant was not proclaimed offender. 7. Learned   AGA   has   also   informed   that   on 13.5.2022 the further proclamation of section 83   Cr.P.C.   has   been   issued   against   the present applicant. 8. Be   that   as   it   may,   at   the   time   of   filing anticipatory bail application on 16.3.2022 the present   applicant   was   not   proclaimed offender, therefore, the bar so imposed by the Apex Court would be considered in the light of intent and purport of said judgments wherein the proclaimed offender has been restrained to get any relief in the application of anticipatory bail. In the present case the applicant was not declared   as   a   proclaimed   offender   on 16.3.2021, the date of filing anticipatory bail, therefore, to me such bar could not restrain the present applicant to file his anticipatory bail application   before   this   Court   under   same section i.e. section 438 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, his anticipatory bail application may be heard and disposed of finally on merits. 9. Notably, sub­section 6 of section 438 Cr.P.C. provides as under : 438(6)Cr.P.C.:   Provisions   of   this   section shall not be applicable.­ (a) to the offences arising out of .­ (i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967; 16 2026:HHC:29941 (ii)   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (iii) the Official Secret Act, 1923; (iv) the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti­Social   Activities   (Prevention) Act,1986. (b)   in   the   offences,   in   which   death sentence can be awarded. Besides, section 82 Cr.P.C. neither creates any rider   nor   imposes   any   restrictions   in   filing anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court has  used the word 'Normally' in re: Lavesh (supra),   meaning   thereby   normally   the anticipatory bail application of the proclaimed offender should not be entertained. Therefore, only   in   the   aforesaid   case/cases   the provisions   of   anticipatory   bail   application would not be applicable. It has nowhere been indicated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. that the proclaimed offender   would   be   barred   to   file   such application. As   to   whether   such   proclaimed offender would be granted anticipatory bail or not   would   depend   upon   the   facts   and circumstances of the particular issue and also on the basis of bar, so imposed by the Apex Court in re: Lavesh (supra), Pradeep Sharma (supra)   and   Prem   Shankar   Prasad   (supra). Therefore,   in   view   of   the   facts   and circumstances of the issue in question, I do not accept the objection, so raised by the learned counsel   for   the   opposite   parties   regarding maintainability of the present application for the reason that the proclamation u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C.   has   been   issued   against   the applicant.” 17 2026:HHC:29941 28. Moreover, the process, which has been initiated by   the   police   to   declare   the   applicant,   as   Proclaimed Offender, is a step to compel her to face the trial. The ultimate goal for issuing the summons, notices, bailable warrants   and   non­bailable   warrants   and   the   process initiated to get her declared, as proclaimed offenders, are the steps to compel the applicant to put appearance before the   Court/Investigating   Agency   and   to   face   the   trial. Moreover,   no   penal   action   can   be   taken   against   the applicant, unless or until, she has not been found guilty by the Competent Court of Law. 29. Another ground, which has been highlighted by the applicant, in the present case, is about the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), in  ECIR/SHSZO/05/2020,  dated  17th  September,   2020, registered   with   Sub­Zonal   Office,   Directorate   of Enforcement,   Shimla,   by   virtue   of   which,   the   lookout circular,   as   well   as,   the   NBWs,   issued   against   the applicant, in the said ECIR, have been ordered to be kept in abeyance. 18 2026:HHC:29941 30. When the passport of the applicant has been revoked, then, her  bona fide  to  return back to India,  on emergency travel certificate, cannot be doubted, by this Court. 31. The   object   of   the   bail   has   elaborately   been discussed   by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   in  Sanjay Chandra   versus   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49. Relevant para of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of   the   accused   person   at   his   trial   by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is   neither   punitive   nor   preventative. Deprivation   of   liberty   must   be   considered   a punishment,   unless   it   can   be   required   to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than   verbal   respect   to   the   principle   that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent  until duly tried   and   duly   found   guilty. Detention   in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity   demands   that   some   unconvicted persons   should   be   held   in   custody   pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In   India,   it   would   be   quite   contrary   to   the concept   of  personal  liberty  enshrined  in  the Constitution   that   any   person   should   be punished   in   respect   of   any   matter,   upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of 19 2026:HHC:29941 his liberty upon only the  belief that  he will tamper with  the   witnesses  if  left   at  liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of   the   fact   that   any   imprisonment   before conviction has a substantial punitive content and   it   would   be   improper   for   any   court   to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct   whether   the   accused   has   been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 32. So far as the further investigation of the case, as highlighted by the learned Additional Advocate General, is   concerned,   on   this   ground,   the   relief,   for   which   the applicants are otherwise entitled to, cannot be denied to her, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   & Others   versus   State   of   Punjab,  reported   in  (1980)   2 Supreme Court Cases 565, wherein, it has been held that a person, having the protection, under Section 438 CrPC (482 of the BNSS), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if, a discovery is to be made; merely, the protection, not to take   any   coercive   action,   does   not   preclude   the investigating agency to get the recovery effected from the 20 2026:HHC:29941 applicant. Relevant   para­43   of   the   judgment,   is reproduced, as under: “43. During the last couple of years this Court, while     dealing   with   appeals   against   orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those  cases  that  (a)  the  applicant  should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to  be  made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the   least   inconvenience   to   the   individuals concerned   and   least   interference   with   the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance   between   the   individual's   right   to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code.” 33. Similar   view   has   again been reiterated   by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sushila Aggarwal and others versus   State   (NCT   of   Delhi)   and   another,  reported  in (2020) 5  Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant para­92.8, of the judgment, is reproduced as under: 21 2026:HHC:29941 “92.8. The  observations  in  Sibbia  regarding “limited   custody”   or   “deemed   custody”   to facilitate the  requirements of the  investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling  the  provisions  of  Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact,   which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In   such   event,   there     is   no   question   (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender   and   seek   regular   bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of   Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking   the   principle   stated   by   this Court   in   State   of   H.P.   v.   Deoman Upadhyaya.” 34. Considering the role attributed to the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the application. 35. Consequently,  the   present   bail   application   is allowed and the  order dated 12.09.2025, is hereby made absolute.   It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case, arising out of FIR No.27   of   2020,   dated   08.03.2020,  registered   under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 22 2026:HHC:29941 120­B   of   the   IPC   with   Police   Station,   Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., on her furnishing personal bond, in the sum of   2,00,000/­ ₹ , with two sureties, each of the like amount,   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   learned   trial Court/Investigating Officer.  This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a)  That the applicant shall join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating   Officer/Court,   in   accordance with law; b)  That   the   applicant  shall  not   leave   India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That   the   applicant  shall  not,   directly   or indirectly,   make   any   inducement,   threat   or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption   from   appearance   by   filing appropriate application. 36. 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 application. 23 2026:HHC:29941 37. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. 38. Record be returned to the quarter concerned. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 21, 2026 ( ps )