IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.249 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Harish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 6.3.2026, whereby this Court after having taken petitioner in custody, enlarged him on bail in FIR No. 11/2026, dated 17.1.2026, under Sections 126(2) BNS (old 339 of IPC), 115(2) BNS (old 323 of IPC), and 352 BNS (old 504 of IPC), 351(2) BNS (old 506 of IPC) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station 2 Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report. 2. Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, has also put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, who had otherwise come present before this Court on 6.3.2026. On 26.2.2026, Dy.SP Mr. Hari Kumar, had come present with record. Though on afore date, he categorically stated before this Court that pursuant to order dated 26.2.2026, petitioner has joined investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him, but yet having taken note of statement made by the complainant, who was also present on that date, this Court adjourned the matter for today’s date. Very purpose of adjourning the matter was to ensure peace and harmony inter-se parties. Though Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, learned counsel, fairly stated that after passing of order dated 6.3.2026, no untoward incident has taken place inter-se parties, but there is apprehension in the mind of the complainant that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may again cause harm to him. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that dispute inter-se parties is on account of some boundary and in that regard, two FIRs already stand registered against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that there is civil litigation 3 pending inter-se complainant and petitioner and in three criminal cases registered at the behest of the complainant under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, petitioner stands acquitted. 4. Having taken note of chequered history of animosity inter-se petitioner and complainant, coupled with the fact that in past also, complainant had filed complaints under SCST Act against the petitioner and pursuant to directions issued vide order dated 26.2.2026, petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail during trial, conclusion whereof is likely to take some time. Moreover, investigating agency does not require custody of the petitioner as has been fairly stated by the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction 4 will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. See: Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496. 6. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 26.2.2026, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a. He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of 5 hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 8. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 9. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. 10. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. 11. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. April 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge