Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 289 (HP)

Swami Ramarupananda v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by the common order, as, all the ten bail applications have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No. 205 of 2024, dated 17 th November, 2024, registered under Sections 132 , 121 and 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Apprehending their arrest in the above-noted FIR, these bail applications have been filed by the above-named applicants, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), for passing a direction, in their favour, directing the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station West, District Shimla, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above-noted FIR. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police. They have termed the case of the police, as false and frivolous. 4. It is the case of the applicants that the present FIR has been lodged against them purely on false and concocted grounds. 5. The applicants have also given the history of the incident, on the basis of which, the instant FIR has been registered against them. 6. According to the applicants, their custody is not required for any purpose and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them in judicial custody, as the very genesis of the case against the applicants is doubtful and imaginary. 7. As per the applicants, they are ready to abide by any condition(s), to be imposed by this Court, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS . 8. On the basis of the above facts, the applicants have prayed that the bail applications may kindly be allowed. 9. While issuing notice to the State, interim bail was granted to the applicants, with a direction to the Investigating Officer to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 10. 9. While issuing notice to the State, interim bail was granted to the applicants, with a direction to the Investigating Officer to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 10. On notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17 th November, 2024, statement of Constable Sahil, QRT Police Line Kaithu, District Shimla, recorded under Section 173 of the BNSS was received in the Police Station, disclosing therein that on 16 th November, 2024, he alongwith the other members of QRT was on duty at Ramkrishan Mission Ashram, Komli Bank, Shimla: 10.1. According to him, when they were on duty, the members of Ramkrishan Mission Ashram, their followers and ABVP workers pelted stones upon them, due to which, they sustained injuries and were taken to IGMC Shimla, in the injured condition, for treatment. 10.2. It has further been mentioned in the said statement that he could identify the persons who had pelted stones upon them. According to him, the said persons have obstructed them in the discharge of their public functions, as such, action be taken against them. 10.3. Thereafter, the police machinery swung into motion. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, on the basis of which, FIR No. 205 of 2024 was registered and the investigation of the case was handed over to HC Harish Kumar. 10.4. In the status report, the police has given the history/details of the property in dispute. As per the status report, a Conference of the followers of Brahmo Samaj had been planned to be organized in Kali Bari Temple Hall on 15 th /16 th November, 2024 and members from all over India had come to attend the same. 10.5. It has been mentioned in the complaint that on 16 th November, 2024, at about 5.00 pm, the followers of Brahmo Samaj had gone to Temple premises to offer prayers. The said programme continued peacefully from 05.00 pm to 08.00 pm. Swami Tanmahimanand and Swami Ramrupanand were giving sermons and the followers of Brahmo Samaj were listening to them. Thereafter, the said persons remained seated in the old hall of the Temple. The said persons started establishing the kalash while reciting ‘Om’. The said programme continued peacefully from 05.00 pm to 08.00 pm. Swami Tanmahimanand and Swami Ramrupanand were giving sermons and the followers of Brahmo Samaj were listening to them. Thereafter, the said persons remained seated in the old hall of the Temple. The said persons started establishing the kalash while reciting ‘Om’. Thereafter, Swami Ramrupanand forcibly took the Kalash established by the folowers of Brahmo Samaj and started abusing and misbehaving with them. In this regard, FIR No. 206 of 2024 is stated to have been registered. 10.6. It has been mentioned in the status report that the authorities, had made efforts to make them understand, but, despite this fact, the applicants had instigated the persons present there and the stones were pelted upon the police, who were discharging their public duties. 10.7. During the course of investigation, the spot was videographed. The physical evidence was taken into possession from the spot. The statements of the witnesses were also got recorded. The injured were taken to IGMC for their medico-legal examination, and their MLCs were taken into possession. The persons belonging to Brahmo Samaj were also medico-legally examined. 10.8. It has been mentioned in the status report that in compliance of the directions of this Court, the applicants have joined the investigation. 10.9. On the basis of the investigation, so conducted till date, the police has submitted that the land in dispute is in the name of Brahmo Samaj Community. It has also been found in the investigation that on 16 th November, 2024, after the conference, the followers of Brahma Samaj had performed the pooja and for that, they had taken the permission of Swami Tanmahimanand. Consequently, they had performed pooja from 05.00 pm to 08.00 pm. Swami Tanmahimanand and Ramrupanand had performed the pooja and also recited Sunderkand. When the holy kalash was being established, then, Swami Ramrupanand had forcibly removed the kalash, due to which, this dispute had arisen. Police was also there as, they were already deployed there with a direction not to obstruct the movement of any follower of Brahmo Samaj. 10.10. According to the police, it is an incident of religious sacrilege, as, the applicants had hatched a conspiracy and instigated the students belonging to ABVP and committed this incident. 10.11. Police was also there as, they were already deployed there with a direction not to obstruct the movement of any follower of Brahmo Samaj. 10.10. According to the police, it is an incident of religious sacrilege, as, the applicants had hatched a conspiracy and instigated the students belonging to ABVP and committed this incident. 10.11. It is the further case of the police that prima facie, it is a case of land grabbing, but, in order to ascertain, who is the mastermind in the alleged crime, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. 10.12. It has also been apprehended that although, the applicants have joined the investigation, but, they are not disclosing about the other persons, who were allegedly with them, at the time of incident. 11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail applications. 12. Heard. 13. First of all, so far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, in the status report, according to which, in case, the interim orders are made absolute, the applicants may hamper the investigation of the case and may also coerce and allure the witnesses not to depose against them, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed on the applicants, in case, the interim orders are made absolute. 14. The role allegedly played by the applicants, in the commission of the alleged crime, will be proved during the course of trial. The applicants are to be presumed innocent, till the conclusion of the trial and the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 15. Although, it has been mentioned in the status report that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, but, merely mentioning this fact, in the status report, is not sufficient, as, it is for the police to make out a case for custodial interrogation, by submitting as to why the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required by the police. 16. The applicants are the permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim orders are made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 17. 16. The applicants are the permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim orders are made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 17. On the basis of the vague averments in the status report, the prayer, so made, by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, is too short to decline relief to the applicants. As such, this Court is of the view that the interim orders, dated 20 th January, 2025, passed in all the bail applications, are liable to be made absolute. 18. Consequently, interim orders, dated 20 th January, 2025, passed in all the bail applications, are made absolute, subject to the conditions, as enumerated in the said orders. 19. 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 bail applications. 20. The applicants are directed to move regular bail applications, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 21. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application(s), in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicants.