JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. The bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] has come up before this Court, seeking a regular bail, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure [herein referred to as Cr.P.C.], originating from FIR No 277/2023 dated 01.11.2023, registered under Sections 307, 323, 384, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 24, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una [H.P.]. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The case set up by Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], is that the bail petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Lower Badhere, Tehsil Haroli, District Una. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid matter. It is further averred that no evidence exists which connects the present bail petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. It is further averred that investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose will be served in case the bail petitioner is enlarged on bail, as the bail petitioner is behind the bars since 07.11.2023 at District Jail Bangar, District Una [H.P.]. 2(i). It is further averred that no past criminal history exists and the conduct of the bail petitioner is unblemished. It is further averred that the bail petitioner is a wrestler and he has bright future and the detention will ruin his career. It is averred that the petitioner has been roped in, on the basis of mere hearsay evidence. The bail petitioner has given undertaking that in case of enlargement on bail, the bail petitioner shall attend the trial and shall execute the personal/surety bonds and shall not cause any threat or inducement to the witnesses in any manner. The instant bail petition, has been filed on behalf of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] through his father as he is already in custody, as referred to above. 2(ii). The petitioner had filed a bail application No.497/2023 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-ll Una, on 07.12.2023, which was dismissed on 31.01.2024 [Annexure A-1]. The operative part of the order passed by the Learned Trial Court reads as under:- “11. 2(ii). The petitioner had filed a bail application No.497/2023 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-ll Una, on 07.12.2023, which was dismissed on 31.01.2024 [Annexure A-1]. The operative part of the order passed by the Learned Trial Court reads as under:- “11. The aforesaid things would show the gravity of the crime allegedly committed by the applicant and his co-accused against the complainant and his associates in order to extort money from the complainant and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy so hatched to extract money the co-accused persons of applicant opened fires with pistol on the vehicle of the complainant occupied by him and his associates and they were fortunate enough that they were not killed by such 2-3 fires opened with pistol on them. 12. The applicant is though permanent resident of this area, but he has hatched criminal conspiracy with his co-accused persons, who except accused Bansh Raizada hail from the State of Punjab and the manner in which the criminal conspiracy was hatched to extort money from the complainant and attempt to kill him was made call for rejection of the bail application as it would not be safe for the complainant and his associates if the applicant is enlarged on bail as it would put them under constant pressure or terror of being killed by the applicant and his co-accused persons, who in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched to extort money from the complainant are alleged to have made attempt to kill him by opening fires on the vehicle of the complainant occupied by him and his associates and one of his associates (Mani) was injured in that pistol fired incident. 13. 13. The applicant had acquired 10 live cartridges from accused Bansh Raizada, who had the same from accused Tashu Sidhu at Hoshiarpur near Bulabari chowk after he was deputed to there by co-accused Sumit Jaswal alias Kaku and had conversation with principal accused Arun Kumar alias Mani Rana suffering detention in District Jail Ludhiana and thereafter the applicant and the accused Sumit Jaswal alias Kaku met the shooters accused (Lavdeesh Sandhu and Satinder Pal alias Chhindu) at Rainsary village, where they were brought by accused Bansh Raizada and thereafter the applicant and accused Sumit Jaswal alias Kaku made the shooters co-accused to occupy the vehicle of applicant (Ford Figo No.HP-16-8042) and they made them well versed of the area and after the shooters co-accused attempted to kill the complainant by opening 2-3 fires with pistol on his car while being occupied by the complainant and his associates, applicant and accused Sumit Jaswal left them at village Lalhri from village Samnal in Alto Car bearing registration No. HP- 19B-2378, which belonged to the sister-in-law of the applicant. These things would show that the applicant had hatched criminal conspiracy with his co-accused persons in order to extort money from the complainant and attempted to kill the complainant, though the complainant and his associates were fortunate enough that 2-3 fires opened with pistol by the shooters co-accused did not kill any of them, although, one of associates of complainant (Mani Ram) suffered injuries with fired cartidge on his finger. 14. The bail application has been opposed by the prosecution on the grounds of gravity of crime allegedly committed by the applicant in league with his co-accused persons and threats to the life of complainant and his associates from the applicant and his co-accused if he is enlarged on bail besides threats to his life. The manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed against the complaint by applicant and his co-accused persons and the principal accused operating the entire incident from inside the jail would speak of the threat to the life and limb of the complainant and his associates if the issue of bail is considered liberally in favour of the applicant besides threats to the life of the applicant, who in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched with principal accused in District Jail Ludhiana played a vital role in the commission of crime. 15. 15. Most of the accused persons hail from State of Punjab and there is a great resentment in the illaka because of the commission of crime of like nature and residents have been feeling scared of the incident of like nature and if issue of bail is considered liberally in favour of the applicant, ignoring the gravity of the crime allegedly committed by him in league with his co-accused, it would endanger the very safety of the society and would not only encourage the applicant, but also similar situated persons to undermine the very rule of law. These things weighed with this Court while declining bail to the applicant. 16. Thus, in view of above reasons and discussion I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail and as a result the application is dismissed being devoid of any merits. The application on completion, be tagged with concerned case FIR for record.” STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Upon issuance of notice on 07.03.2024, the State Authorities were directed to file the reply/status report and the matter was directed to be listed on 23.03.2024. 4. In terms of the orders passed by this Court, directing the State Authorities to file the status report, but the respondents/State Authorities have filed status report dated 25.03.2024, on the instructions of SHO, Police Station Haroli, District Una. 4(i). A perusal of the Status Report dated 25.03.2024, reveals that the instant FIR No 277/ 2023 dated 01.11.2023, was filed with Police Station Haroli, under Sections 307, 323, 384, 120-B and 212 of IPC, at the instance of one Sh. Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu, alleging that the present bail petitioner, namely Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi, has hatched a conspiracy with the primary accused, namely Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana [lodged in District Jail, Ludhiana] along with other accused namely Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, Vansh Raizada and Tashu Sandhu, to extort money and kill, the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu and this conspiracy was sought to be implemented by hiring two shooters, namely Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu, who gave effect to the conspiracy, on 31.10.2023, by firing cartridges on the complainant. ROLE OF BAIL PETITIONER TOWARDS CONSPIRACY: 4(ii). Further, the status report narrates the role of the present bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. ROLE OF BAIL PETITIONER TOWARDS CONSPIRACY: 4(ii). Further, the status report narrates the role of the present bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. The status report reveals that at the instance of main accused, namely Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana, who is lodged in District Jail Ludhiana, one of the co-accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, went to meet Vansh Raizada at Hoshiarpur [Punjab] on 29.10.2023. On reaching Hoshiarpur, Vansh Raizada, one of the accused, enabled conversation of Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, accused with the principal-accused, Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana. On reaching Bulabari chowk at Hoshiarpur (Pb), Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, accused met another accused Tashu Sidhu who gave 10 pistol cartridges to Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, as referred to above. Thereafter, Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku handed over those 10 cartridges at Village Rainsary in District Una, to the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], who was present in a wrestling competition. 4(iii). The status report further reveals that on 30.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] stayed at the house of another accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku and thereafter, on 31.10.2023 both the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] as well as accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku remained in contact with each other, on phone. Thereafter, Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku took two of the shooters namely Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu along with him to village Rainsary, where all of them met the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], as referred to above. MODUS OPERANDI-WORKED OUT BY BAIL PETITION WITH OTHER ACCUSED TILL INCIDENT: 4(iv). The status report further reveals that on 31.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] took those two shooters along with Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku in his vehicle No.HP-16-8042, having description as Ford Figo, towards the Villaage Ghaluwal, where the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu, was running a dhaba/hotel. 4(v). The status report further reveals that the principal accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana], gave whatsapp call to the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu, who was running a dhaba/hotel, at Village Ghaluwal, on 31.10.2023 at about 7:35 pm. 4(v). The status report further reveals that the principal accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana], gave whatsapp call to the complainant, namely Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu, who was running a dhaba/hotel, at Village Ghaluwal, on 31.10.2023 at about 7:35 pm. It has also come in the status report that Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana, principal accused asked the complainant, Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu [dhaba/hotel owner and the contractor], that the aforesaid Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana, was in need of Rs.11,00,000/- [Rupees Eleven Lakh] and he should immediately send an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand] to Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakh] to him so that he may pursue filing of bail cases before the Courts and if need be, in the Supreme Court, who was detained in Ludhiana jail. The demand so made by Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana was refused by the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu]. On this, the prime accused, namely Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana, again gave a whatsapp call, threatening the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] that in case he does not fulfils his demand, then, he will be killed. The status report further reveals that at 7:45 pm, another call was made by the primary accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana] but the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] did not respond to that call. Thereafter, at about 8:20/8:25 pm the complainant gave a call to the alleged co-accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku at about 8:20/8:25 pm, describing him of the entire episode. Thereafter, the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu], being scared of the entire incident, left his dhaba/hotel along with his friends, and while he was on his way from Ghaluwal towards Police Post Pandoga in his Breeza Car i.e. No.HP-72C- 6637, along with his friends, namely Pankaj, Mani and Abhi, then, these two shooters, namely Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu who were riding a moto rcycle with muffled faces, fired from the pistol due to which one of the accomplices of the complainant, received an injury. 4(vi). The status report further reveals that after the aforesaid incident, complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu], along with his friends, reached Jal Shakti Vibhag Rest House and from there the complainant informed the police. ROLE OF BAIL PETITIONER AFTER INCIDENT 4(vii). 4(vi). The status report further reveals that after the aforesaid incident, complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu], along with his friends, reached Jal Shakti Vibhag Rest House and from there the complainant informed the police. ROLE OF BAIL PETITIONER AFTER INCIDENT 4(vii). Even after the alleged incident, the status report reveals role of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] to the effect that after the alleged incident the bail petitioner took the two shooters i.e. Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu in the vehicle No. HP-19B-2378, i.e. Alto car which was owned by bail petitioner’s sister and these shooters were dropped from Village Samnal to Village Lalhri. The status report further reveals that after the incident, the present bail petitioner, escaped from the scene and reached Village Kot, District Hamirpur, where he destroyed his phone SIM. 4(viii). The status report points out the conspiracy whereby, the CCTV footage dated 31.10.2023, corroborates the active participation of the bail petitioner, in the aforesaid offence, whereby the CCTV footage, reveals that at around 4:02 pm, the vehicle owned by the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] i.e. HP-16- 8042 was found travelling from Village Rainsary to Una, in order to have surveillance of the area, where the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] was running a dhaba / hotel, as referred to above. Even after the incident, the CCTV footage reveals that at around 9:52 pm on 31.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] and his co-accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, reached Samnal chowk, where both the shooters had already reached on their motorcycle. Even the CCTV footage at 9:53 pm on 31.10.2023 further corroborates the post incident involvement whereby, bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], met the shooters and made them to sit in his car and then dropped-left them at Village Lalhri. 4(ix). The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], does not have a clean criminal record as he is involved in case No.223/2018 dated 11.08.2018 under Sections 341, 324 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Haroli, which is pending trial before the Court concerned. In view of above background, the State Authorities have prayed for rejecting the bail of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. LEGAL POSITION: 5. Heard Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent. 6. In view of above background, the State Authorities have prayed for rejecting the bail of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. LEGAL POSITION: 5. Heard Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent. 6. Before dealing with the present application, it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 439 of Cr.P.C and Sections 307, 323, 384 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 [added later on] of Arms Act, which reads as under:- 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1)A High Court or Court of Session may direct – (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. [Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application.] (1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code.] (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. 307. Attempt to murder.— Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section. 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 384. Punishment for extortion- Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 7. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for post arrest or regular bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for regulating grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01. 7(i). 7(i). While dealing with the case for grant of regular bail, under Section 439 Cr PC, the three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559 , in Para 25 that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim for bail. 7(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under: 11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including: (i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence; (ii) The severity of punishment; (iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not; (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/ witnesses; (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings; (vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence; (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice; (viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail; (ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge; (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC, as the case may be. 7(iii). In CBI versus Santosh Karnani, (2023) 6 SCALE 250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the illustrative time-tested broad parameters which are required to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail; which have recently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085. 8. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 439 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], a formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in the crime needs to be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters as mandated by law, as referred to herein above. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public /state. In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution. 10. The bail petitioner had filed a Bail Application No CIS 497 of 2017, before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Una (HP), which was dismissed on 31.7.2024. {Annexure P-1}, by a well-reasoned order, after recording satisfaction that the prima facie accusation points out towards the accusation against the bail petitioner herein. ANALYSIS 11. Notwithstanding the orders passed by the Learned Trial Court, dismissing the plea for bail, this Court proceeds to examine the prayer for bail in instant case. 12. In the background of the accusation in the FIR, the stand of the bail petitioner in the bail application, the stand of the State Authorities/prosecution in the status report and the mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] is not entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, for the following reasons:- 12(i). A perusal of the FIR No.277/2023 dated 01.11.2023 under Sections 307, 323, 384, 120-B, 212 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, reveal that the prima facie accusation and the reasonable grounds exists, pointing out towards the accusation of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], in the instant case. 12(ii). The sequence of events as in the FIR and the Status Report, filed by the State Authorities reveals that the prime accused Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana [despite his detention in Ludhiana Jail] conspired with other accused Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku; the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]; Vansh Raizada and Tashu Sandhu by hiring two shooters namely Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu to give effect to their conspiracy, designed to indulge in act to cause the murder of the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] [dhaba/hotel owner], is writ large on the face of it. The conspiracy, prior to the alleged incident, involvement at the time of incident and the sequence of events after the alleged incident, prima facie point out, towards the accusations against the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. The conspiracy, prior to the alleged incident, involvement at the time of incident and the sequence of events after the alleged incident, prima facie point out, towards the accusations against the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi]. The reasonable grounds as detailed above also point out towards the accusation against the bail petitioner. 12(iii). The FIR and the Status Report, reveals that the entire conspiracy was hatched between the present bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] with Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, for giving effect to the alleged incident, whereby the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu], resident of Village Saloh, who was running a dhaba/ hotel at Village Ghaluwal, was threatened by the mainprimary accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana] on whatsapp call and even the bail petitioner had a key role, in having conversation and regular contact with the main accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana] and it was only due to such conspiracy, the 10 pistol cartridges were got arranged from Hoshiarpur and then received by the present bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] at village Rainsary on 29.10.2023, where a wrestling competition was in operation and the bail petitioner was also present at the said place. 12(iv). The Status Report dated 31.10.2023, further reveals that the two shooters, namely, Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu were arranged in conspiracy with and at the behest of both the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] as well as the co-accused, namely Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku from Hoshiarpur [Punjab] and both these shooters, on reaching village Rainsary had met the bail petitioner on 31.10.2023. The Status Report further points out that on 31.10.2023, the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] had taken, these shooters in Ford Figo Car No.HP-16-8042, towards the area where the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] was running a dhaba/hotel. Even the post incident story as is borne out from the status report further prima facie points out towards the active conspiracy and involvement of bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], for the reason that after the incident, the petitioner dropped these shooters on receiving the call from the main accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana] at village Lalhri at about 9:53 pm on 31.10.2023. In these circumstances, once the prima-facie accusation and the reasonable grounds, point out towards the accusation against the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], who had conspired with other accused [Satish Jaswal @ Kaku, Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana, Vansh Raizaada and Tashu Sandhu], where the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu] carried out his hotel/dhaba business and resided, and had hired two shooters, gave effect to the conspiracy and post incidence had helped the two shooters to abscond/ run away from scene of occurrence on 31.10.2023, then, in view of the active involvement of the bail petitioner, this Court sees no reason to enlarge the bail petitioner at this stage. 12(v). The bail petitioner cannot claim enlargement on bail keeping in view the fact that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was conspired and attributable to the bail petitioner along with Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, in active participation of the main accused [Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana], who had been in touch with the bail petitioner, Sumit Jaswal and others, despite being in custody in District Jail Ludhiana, which is clear from the status report. 12(vi). The nature and gravity of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of Section 307 IPC read with other offences, does not permits this Court to release bail petitioner at this stage. 12(vii). The Status Report further reveals that three other persons namely Abhi, Harry, Jaskaran and Varun had also played an active role in aiding and conspiring with the bail petitioner and other accused including Sumit Jaswal @ Kaku, so as to effectuate the commission of aforesaid offence but these three persons are still untraceable and in case, the bail petitioner is released, then, there is every likelihood of danger or imminent threat to the aforesaid witnesses also. 12(viii). The bail petitioner cannot claim bail as of right when, the status report further reveals that the bail petitioner has blemished past criminal conduct/ incident as he is involved in a Criminal Case No.223/ 2018 dated 11.08.2018, under Sections 341, 324 and 34 of IPC, registered in Police Station, Haroli [H.P.]. That being so, in view of the past criminal antecedents the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. That being so, in view of the past criminal antecedents the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar versus State of Bihar and another (2022) 3 SCC 245 , that the past criminal history disentitles an accused to be enlarged on bail, as under:- “18. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly considering the fact that Respondent No. 2 is a historysheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged.” Likewise in the case of Bharwad Santosh bhai Sondabhai versus State of Gujarat and another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1092, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 8. In the present case, after repeated directions, an affidavit has finally been filed by the respondent No.1-State, listing the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 in para 5 which is extracted herein below:- Sr. No. Details of FIRs 1. FIR No. 11216025220323 of 2022 registered at Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar u/s 385, 147, 148, 323, 379, 504, 506(2), 511 r/w 120(B) of Penal Code, 1860. 2. FIR No.11216008210402 of 2021 registered under Section 65(A)(A), 66 (1)(B) of Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 at Sectior-7 Police Station Gandhinagar. 3. FIR No. 11192011200478 of 2020 registered at Bhopal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural u/s 188 of Penal Code, 1860 and 113 of Gujarat Police Act. 12. For the reasons noted above, we are of the firm opinion that the respondent No.2 was not entitled to any relief in the instant case. Respondent No.2 had remained in custody for barely six months (23rd September, 2021 to 18th February, 2022) before he was released on bail in respect of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime. Respondent No.2 had remained in custody for barely six months (23rd September, 2021 to 18th February, 2022) before he was released on bail in respect of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18th February, 2022 is quashed and set-aside and respondent No.2 is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial Court.” In view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, once the past incident and past history of the instant bail petitioner is blemished, which is clear from earlier F.I.R No 223 of 2018, dated 11.08.2018 under Sections 341, 324 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Haroli, [H.P.], then the past criminal history, antecedent(s) disentitles the petitioner, to be enlarged on bail, in these circumstances. 12(x). The bail petitioner, in considered view of this Court is not liable to be enlarged, for the reason, that there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner repeats another offence at the instance of other co-accused Sumit Jaswal and primary accused namely Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana [who gave effect to the entire incident from District Jail Ludhiana, by using a mobile phone, while in jail], repeats another offence. 12(xi). Moreover, there is reasonable apprehension that the bail petitioner may give any inducement or threat to the complainant [Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu], again for settling old scores. In these circumstances, the release will also adversely affect / hamper the investigation and there is every possibility that the justice may be throttled by the bail petitioner herein, or by others, at his instance. 12(xii). Even the Status Report suggests that in the event of enlargement on bail, there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner may abscond or flee away abroad /outside the country, which shall obstruct completion of investigation and the proceedings / trial therefore, the claim for bail, is without merit, at this stage. 12(xiii). Even the residents of the area, where the complainant resides [Saloh] and the place where the complainant carries on business [Ghaluwal], are under fear, and therefore, in the larger interests of society and public safety, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer for bail, at this stage. 13. 12(xiii). Even the residents of the area, where the complainant resides [Saloh] and the place where the complainant carries on business [Ghaluwal], are under fear, and therefore, in the larger interests of society and public safety, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer for bail, at this stage. 13. In view of the above discussion, and in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the prayer of the petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], for enlargement on bail, is without merit; at this stage, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 14. The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for the purposes of investigation and the proceedings thereafter, including the trial, if any against either of the parties herein. 15. Notwithstanding the passing of the above order, denying the concession of bail in the instant case, this Court, feels it appropriate to take note of the peculiar facts in the status report filed in Cr.MP (M) No 409 of 2024, titled as Lakhwinder Singh alias Abhi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, revealing that the main accused, namely, Arun Kumar @ Mani Rana who is presently in judicial custody in District Jail, Ludhiana (Pb) for some other offences has been found using the Mobile phone during judicial custody and in Central Jail, Ludhiana and besides him, about 1294 Mobile Phones and 740 SIM Cards have been recovered from the prisoners, which certainly reveals a very disturbing state of affairs. This Court is constrained to observe that this Court shall be remising in its duties, in order to ensure an effective and better administration of justice in jails in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This Court is constrained to observe that this Court shall be remising in its duties, in order to ensure an effective and better administration of justice in jails in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, this Court directs the State Authorities to comply with the following directions :- i) The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Himachal Pradesh and Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, shall take up the matter with their respective counterparts-officers i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and DGP (Prisons) Government of Punjab, with reference to the facts in Para 15 supra ; so as to bring transparency and effective discipline in jail administration; ii) Besides the above, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, are directed to ensure strict implementation of the Prisons Act and the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual (2021) notified by the State Government in letter and spirit; ENSURING DISCIPLINE-WITHIN JAILS: iii) To install CCTVs with night vision facility, having eighteen months storage in all the police stations and jails in Himachal Pradesh within three months from today; iv) CCTVs, if already installed, shall be made functional and also upgraded as in (iii) within the above period; v) CCTV installation(s) shall be monitored by concerned Superintendent (Jails) or under his directions by other officers on day to day basis ; who shall certify every day, on prescribed proforma [to be notified by the department] that no incident of use of mobile-cell phones by any prisoner was detected ; vi) CCTVs so installed, as referred to above shall have twin base ; having one base at State Headquarter(s) and another with Superintendent (Jails) of each jail ; Inspector General (Prisons) shall himself or under his directions ensure that all CCTV Footages are monitored at least once a week and records of monitoring be also maintained ; vii) Officers of jail administration including Warden and other staff deployed inside jail(s), on rotation duty or otherwise, should use “Dedicated Mobile Handsets” only ; Necessary mechanism be worked out and the SOP be issued for its implementation within three months ; viii) Each Superintendent (Jails) shall ensure that only “Dedicated Mobile-Cell Phone or Landline” is/are permitted to be used by prisoner(s) to establish social tie ups with their family members; and record whereof be also maintained on day to day basis. Ensuring Discipline [Prisoners-Police] Outside Jails: ix) Mechanism be worked out to ensure that police officials, who are deployed with prisoners for taking them to Trial /Court or Hospital or other purposes outside the Jails shall use “Dedicated Cell-Mobile Phone” or authorized Cell phone, which shall be paired with the Dedicated Mobile Handset of each Superintendent (Jail) and an authorized Police Official {concerned SHO/IO etc} to ensure that such prisoners do not resort to acts not permitted or they do not misuse their liberty/concession ; x) Necessary SOP be issued in case of non-compliance of all or any of the above directions by the jail officials as well as the police officials ; xi) The directions in Paras (iii) to (ix) shall continue to remain in force for a period of three months or till an appropriate mechanism is carved out {whichever is earlier} by the State Authorities so as to ensure an effective and proper implementation of the Statute and the Prisons Manual, in the light of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex in the matter of D.K. Basu v State of WB, in (2015) 8 SCC 744 and Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184 ; xii) During Inspections, every Sessions Judge Districts shall resort to random checks in terms of above; 16. List for compliance before this Court after two months to have an update in the matter. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.