Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16693 (HP)

Balwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-02-26

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R No. 28/25, dated 08.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Sansarpur Terrace, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Yudhvir found 14 trees of different species to have  been cut by some person on 23.08.2025. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. There is no material against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate granted bail to the co-accused. The majority of 28-29 cases registered against the petitioner have been decided in his favour. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is in judicial custody. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Yudhvir, found 14 Khair trees to have been cut in UPF Jakhuni West. Out of 14 Khair trees 09 scants were taken by the accused and 5 scants were lying on the spot. The police registered the FIR and checked the CCTV footage. A Bolero Neo, bearing registration No. HP-88A-2879 and a Tempo 407 bearing registration No. PB07W1288 were found to be going towards the spot on the intervening night of 23.08.2025 and 24.08.2025 at about 1:00 AM. These vehicles returned at about 3:50 AM. The police checked the mobile data and found that Mobile No XXXX333 issued in the name of Anil Kumar and Mobile No xxxx204 issued in the name of Balwinder were in touch with each other. The police apprehended Balwinder @ Bunty, who revealed that he and other persons had cut the trees and taken the wood in the vehicles. The police arrested the other persons and recovered the vehicles. Balwinder made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of two saws. The other co-accused also made a disclosure statement. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 17.11.2025 after the completion of the investigation. Om Parkash, Rohit and Yadvender are yet to be arrested. The report from RFSL Mandi is awaited. Balwinder made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of two saws. The other co-accused also made a disclosure statement. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 17.11.2025 after the completion of the investigation. Om Parkash, Rohit and Yadvender are yet to be arrested. The report from RFSL Mandi is awaited. 30 FIR’s were registered against the petitioner, out of which 8 are pending before the Court. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The co-accused have already been released on bail. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences if released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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, 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] .] 9. 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 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 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. 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 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) 10. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report shows that the petitioner made a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of saws with which the trees were cut. He also named the co-accused who made the disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the articles connected to the commission of the crime. Therefore, prima-facie there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 13. He also named the co-accused who made the disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the articles connected to the commission of the crime. Therefore, prima-facie there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 13. The offences stated to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by a Magistrate and are not grave enough to justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025 and has remained in custody for about 5 months. 14. The status report also shows that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and the learned Trial Court has taken cognisance of the same. This means that the investigation is complete. No reason has been assigned in the status report as to why the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is required. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences in the past. 30 FIRs were registered against him, many of which are pending, and he was convicted in some of the FIRs. Therefore, there is possibility of the petitioner indulging in the commission of the crime. This submission will not help the prosecution. The petitioner has remained in custody for about 5 months, and the bail cannot be withheld as a punishment to the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal antecedents cannot be used to detain the petitioner in custody, considering the nature of the offences and the period of detention. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ?1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by 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 on each and every hearing 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 concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing 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 concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (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. 17. 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. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.