2026:HHC:1259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 2990 of 2025 Decided on : 05.01.2026 Subhash Chander …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Applicant in person Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by ASI Sanjeev Kumar, Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Applicant – Subhash Chander, apprehending his arrest, in a case arising out of FIR No.76 of 2023, dated 17.03.2023, registered, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), with Police Station, Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., has filed the present 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:1259 application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/ Investigating Officer of Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case. 3. The relief, as claimed, in the application has been sought on the ground that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the Police. 4. According to the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the crime, in question and he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police under Section 482 of the BNSS. 5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, however, the said application has been dismissed on 20.12.2025. 6. Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, 3 2026:HHC:1259 in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./Police, under Section 482 BNSS. 7. The applicant, in addition to this, has pleaded that two other cases have already been registered against him, bearing FIR No.289/2010, dated 27.10.2010, under Sections 420, 457, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, and FIR No.187 of 2021, dated 18.07.2021, under Sections 420, 465 and 120-B IPC with Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, however, he has not been convicted in any of the cases. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, on 22.12.2025, disclosing therein, that on 17.03.2023, a complaint has been received from the office of Town and Country Planning, Kullu District Kullu, mentioning therein about the following facts:- “To the SHO, Police Station Kullu, H.P. Subject:- Register an FIR and conduct enquiry against Shri Munee Suri C/o, P.O. Bandrol, Tehsil & Distt. Kullu, H.P. Sir, This is in reference to above cited subject it is intimated that the above named person got to his resorts building by producing fake NOC (photocopy attached), as this department not issued any type of NOC for 4 2026:HHC:1259 electricity connection to his above said resort. You are therefore, requested to register an FIR against the above named person and investigate the matter at the earliest, please Yours faithfully. Sd/- Town & Country Planner, Divisional town Planning Office. Kullu Distt. Kullu HP.” 10. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR, in question, has been registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 11. Thereafter, ASI Jai Singh, Police Station Sadar Kullu, has obtained record from the Town and Country Planner, Divisional Town Planning Office, Kullu regarding installation of electricity connection in the name of Neeralaya Resort at Nangabag Vihal and issuance of fake NOC and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 12. Thereafter, the I.O. associated Muneer Suri, in the investigation, who has disclosed to the police that in his Resort namely Neeralaya, a contract for establishment of electricity transformer and transmission line and installation of meter, was given to one Subhash Electrical, Proprietor Jagannathi Construction. In this regard, oral agreement was entered into between the parties. 5 2026:HHC:1259 13. During investigation, specimen hand writing of seven suspicious persons/dealing hands were obtained and sent to RFSL Dharamshala, from where, the result has been received. As per the result, on the fake NOC, the signatures on the stamp of Planning Officer, were put by Lokender Rana, employee of contractor Subhash Sharma. 14. During investigation, it has been found that contractor Subhash Sharma, has obtained the work of installation of transmission line to the transformer to be installed at Neeralaya Resort owned by Muneer Suri. Subhash Sharma has got prepared the file from his employee, and thereafter, the same was submitted to the TCP Office, by replacing the original NOC, with fake NOC. 15. On the basis of the fake NOC, the Electricity Department installed the transformer in Neeralaya Resort, in the year 2017, whereas, the TCP Office has granted NOC in the year 2018, online. 16. It is the further case of the police that on 16.12.2025, accused Lokender Rana, was associated and was arrested. On 17.12.2025, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Kullu, 6 2026:HHC:1259 from where, he was remanded to Police custody for four days. 17. Lastly, it has been stated that as per the investigation, Contractor Subhash Sharma, applicant has hatched a conspiracy and he has deposed a fake NOC as Original NOC with the Electricity Department. 18. Considering the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant, vide order dated 22.12.2025, and the matter was adjourned to 29.12.2025. 19. On 29.12.2025, the police has filed supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the applicant is a clever person and in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may coerce the witnesses. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned for 05.01.2026. 20. On 05.01.2026, the police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the applicant has joined the investigation, but, he is not disclosing anything about the fake NOC, as such, his custodial interrogation is required. 21. On the basis of the above facts, it has been apprehended that the applicant is a clever person and in 7 2026:HHC:1259 case, the interim order is made absolute, he may tamper with the evidence, as such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 22. Heard. 23. In this case, the applicant has joined the investigation. However, according to the police, he is not disclosing anything about the fake NOC and not cooperating with the investigation of the case. 24. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery effected from the applicant as, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph 43 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 8 2026:HHC:1259 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. 25. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under:- “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 9 2026:HHC:1259 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.” 26. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail application, has been opposed mainly on the ground that applicant is not disclosing anything about the fake NOC. The alleged refusal/non-cooperation of the applicant, to the considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground for dismissal of the application, as no one can be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 27. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah versus Kamal Dayani & Others, (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 753, the applicant is entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the application. Relevant paragraph 43 of judgment, are reproduced, as under:- 10 2026:HHC:1259 “43. We are of the firm opinion that non- cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.” 28. Considering the fact that investigation is almost complete and the case is based upon the documentary, as well as, scientific evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present application, which would result into the police/judicial custody of the applicant. 29. So far as the registration of the other cases against the applicant, are concerned, in none of those cases, conviction has been inflicted by the competent Court of law. As such, merely, on the basis of the registration of the other cases, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the applicant. 30. The applicant is permanent resident of District Kullu, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case the 11 2026:HHC:1259 interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 31. The role attributed to the applicant would be proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be nothing, but pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. 32. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicant, is required to be made absolute. 33. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 22.12.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.76/2023, dated 17.03.2023, registered, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, with Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : 12 2026:HHC:1259 a) That the applicant shall join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, 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. 34. 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 application. 35. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge January 05, 2026 (ps)