2026:HHC:16280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.615 of 2026 Decided on: 12.05.2026 Rajat Rana alias Raja … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. ASI Vikram Singh, I.O. P.P. City, Una, P.S.Una, Distt. Una, H.P., present in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on record. 2. By way of this application/petition, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on regular bail, in case F.I.R. No.88 of 2021, dated 15.03.2021, registered under Sections 392, 397, 452, 465, 468, 471, 485, 216A, 120B of the Indian Panel Code, Sections 25-54-59 of the Indian Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar, Una, Distt. Una, H.P. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the orders earlier passed by this Court, rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. Thereafter, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexure P-6) and submitted that as the trial has 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16280 still not concluded, it is in this backdrop that the petitioner is approaching the Court. He submitted that as the trial is not progressing at a satisfactory pace and there is a likelihood of the same consuming more time, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and he be released on bail as he has already remained in custody for almost five years. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General apprised the Court that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are number of cases registered against him under various Acts including the Indian Arms Act, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Excise Act etc. In light of his criminal antecedents, there is every possibility that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may jump the bail and thus evade trial. Learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the Status Report submitted that the trial is proceeding at a satisfactory pace. He submitted that out of the 61 witnesses cited by the prosecution, statements of 15 witnesses have been recorded and now the case is ordered to be listed from 27.07.2026 to 31.07.2026 for recording the statements of certain other prosecution witnesses. He, thus submitted that in this backdrop the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the documents appended with the present petition as well as the latest Status Report. 3 2026:HHC:16280 6. In fact, a perusal of the bail petition demonstrates that the petitioner therein has given the details of the cases which are pending against him. Reference is also made to matters wherein the petitioner was convicted and has undergone punishment. All this at least demonstrates one fact that the petitioner is indeed a habitual offender and lodging of the present FIR is not an isolated case. 7. Though, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that the petitioner now is in custody for almost five years, but then this Court also has to see as to whether, in the event of the grant of bail the petitioner is likely to commit the same offence again, what is the gravity of the offence alleged against him and whether there is any possibility of the petitioner jumping the bail. 8. The petitioner earlier, has been booked for the commission of offences under the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Excise Act, besides FIRs lodged against him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The offences, which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner including the present case, are grave offences. 9. As the FIRs have been registered against the petitioner since the year 2018 onwards as per the material provided to the Court, obviously the alleged offences committed by the petitioner which resulted in the lodging of the subsequent FIRs were during the pendency of earlier FIRs, when the petitioner was on bail. The above is demonstrative of the fact that prima facie the petitioner has 4 2026:HHC:16280 indulged in criminal activities while being on bail in previous FIRs. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner in the considered view of this Court casts a doubt that if released on bail, the petitioner may again engage in the commission of same or similar offences for which the present FIR has been lodged. 10. Besides this, as the matter is now listed before the learned Trial Judge from 27.07.2026 to 31.07.2026, interest of justice can be secured by observing that the learned Trial Judge shall make an endeavour to record majority of the statements during the said period and thereafter, dates be given in quick succession to ensure that the evidence of remaining witnesses is also completed within some reasonable time. 11. In light of above observations, this Court is not showing any indulgence to the petitioner, at this stage, but it is observed that endeavour be made by the learned Trial Court to complete the recording of statements of witnesses as expeditiously as possible. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2026 (Rishi)