IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.289 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suraj Pal alias Badal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Suraj Pal @ Badal, who is behind bars since 25.7.2026, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 178 of 2025 dated 25.7.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 331(3) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”). 2 2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Prakash Chand, PS Sadar, Hamirpur, has come present with record. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that complainant Ms. Shaili lodged a complaint that she runs a shop of readymade garments at a place called Baddu and on 25.7.2025, at about 3:45, while she had gone to her house for bringing tea, she found locks of her house broken. She alleged that she immediately called one Sunil Kumar, who reached on the spot and found that person, who had broken the lock, had bolted the door from inside and thereafter, escaped from the back door. Complainant alleged that she found that locker of one almirah was also broken and gold ornaments along with cash of Rs. 12,500/- were stolen. In the afore background, FIR, at the first instance, came to be lodged against unknown person, however on the same day, police arrested the present bail petitioner, who was found in possession of the gold ornaments as well as cash stolen from the house of the complainant. Since complainant identified the ornaments and petitioner admitted his guilt, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against him and since then, he is behind the bars. 3 4. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. He stated that petitioner is a hardcore criminal because in past also, five criminal cases stand registered against him. He stated that in two of the criminal cases, one is registered at Una and other in Janpat, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, petitioner already stands declared as Proclaimed Offender. He stated that since petitioner hails from Uttar Pradesh and he already stands declared as Proclaimed Offender in two cases, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, who in that event, would not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on the same day of lodging of FIR, bail petitioner was apprehended by the police with stolen property. Though stolen articles stand recovered, but this Court cannot 4 lose sight of the fact that bail petitioner had been indulging in illegal activities for quite some time. In two criminal cases, he already stands declared Proclaimed Offender and as such, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 7. Though learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that bail petitioner already stands enlarged on bail in afore criminal cases, but such fact may not be a ground to accept his prayer for grant of bail, rather this Court is of the view that even after grant of bail in afore cases, petitioner did not mend his ways and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage. 8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in the present bail petition and same is dismissed. April 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge