JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner(s) have filed the present petition(s) for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in FIR No. 56/2024 dated 01.04.2024 registered at Police Station West District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). The petitioners are innocent and they have nothing to do with the commission of crime. They were falsely implicated by the mother of Tikam Chand. The charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Co-accused had got pre-arrest bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one co-accused Vinay Sharma got bail from this Court. The petitioners belong to a respectable family. They have roots in the society. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. They do not have any criminal antecedents. The trial has not commenced and there is a violation of the right of speedy trial of the petitioners, hence the petitions. 2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on 1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand in Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam Chand had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her home on a bus. She told Sewa Nand that she would call him after getting off the bus. However, she could not call him back as she was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son Med Ram about the call. The police also called her and inquired whether she had authorized any person to burn the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram went to the village and found that the dead body of Tikam Chand was burnt by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with Rs.5,000/-. The police also called her and inquired whether she had authorized any person to burn the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram went to the village and found that the dead body of Tikam Chand was burnt by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with Rs.5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered that Tikkam Chand had committed a theft in a temple and the villagers had beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR. It was found that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on 21.3.2024 that police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police called Rajiv Sharma who said that one person had lit a fire near the temple. He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being taken to the police post. The police waited for the person but nobody came to the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv Sharma in the morning and he said that the person was sent to his home. Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70 mtrs. from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand. Tara Chand informed other villagers who were present near Sheetla Mata Temple about the death of Tikkam Chand. The villagers gathered in the house of Ward Member Jagdish Chand. He called Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the members of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by Tikkam Chand. They also told that Tikkam Chand was sent to his home. He was heavily intoxicated and he fell in a state of intoxication. Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved the samples. The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The call details were also checked and the persons were found in touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv Sharma, Vinay Sharma, Ashish and Hemant saw that Sheetla Mata Temple was put on fire on 21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went to the temple and found Tikkam Chand putting the temple on fire. The call details were also checked and the persons were found in touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv Sharma, Vinay Sharma, Ashish and Hemant saw that Sheetla Mata Temple was put on fire on 21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went to the temple and found Tikkam Chand putting the temple on fire. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about this fact. Rajiv Sharma told Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Ram Lal, Rajesh, Jagdish, Harish etc. about the incident. They reached the temple and gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tikkam Chand revealed that Rahul was also involved in the theft. He was brought from his home by Ram Lal, Umesh, Bhanu, Nikhilesh, Nikhil, Nitin, Lakshay and Jagdish Chand. They gave beatings to Rahul. Rahul also saw Tikkam Chand lying on the floor. His head and face were bleeding. Rajiv, Hemant, Ashish, Vinay, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Harish and Sushil were present and they gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The villagers also took their photographs and prepared the video. Subsequently, Tikkam Chand died and his dead body was burnt. The police arrested Vinay, Ashish, Shankar Lal, Geeta Ram, Rajiv Sharma and Tara Chand. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, Tikkam Chand could have died due to injuries caused with a stick recovered by the police. It was found that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste; hence Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was added. As per the investigation conducted by the police, Vinay Sharma, Hemant, Rajiv and Ashish reached the complex of Sheetla Mata Temple on 21.3.2024 after noticing the fire. They caught hold of Tikam Chand. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about the apprehension of the thief. Accused Tara Chand, Shankar Lal and Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven persons gave beatings to Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Harish Kumar noticed bleeding injuries suffered by Tikam Chand. Rahul saw Tikam Chand lying near the Hawan Kund. He noticed the petitioners and other accused persons. Tara Chand, Rajiv and other persons gave beatings to Rahul. The report from FSL has been received. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime. They had given beatings to Tikam Chand which led to his death. They had cremated the dead body and destroyed the evidence. Tara Chand, Rajiv and other persons gave beatings to Rahul. The report from FSL has been received. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime. They had given beatings to Tikam Chand which led to his death. They had cremated the dead body and destroyed the evidence. The photographs of Tikam Chand and Rahul were found in the mobile phone of Vinay. The petitioners are involved in a heinous offence. They can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail, therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner Shankar Lal and Mr Ajit Sharma and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The prosecution is relying upon the statements of Jagdish and Rahul to establish its case. As per the statement of Jagdish, Tara Chand, Rajeev, Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Rajesh, Sushil and Harish were present in the temple. Out of them Rajesh, Sushil and Harish were released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Jagdish attributed the overt acts to Rajesh, Tara Chand and Umesh. Rahul stated about the presence of Tara Chand, Rajeev, Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, Shankar, Rajesh, Harish and Sushil. Out of these persons Rajesh, Harish and Sushil were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereas Vinay was granted bail by this Court. He has attributed the overt acts only to Rajeev, Tara Chand and Umesh. The principle of parity demands that like persons should be treated alike and when the bail has been granted to some of the co-accused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court, it should not be denied to the present bail petitioners. The status report shows that the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 28.03.2025 and there is no early likelihood of the conclusion of the trial, therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel adopted these submissions. 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma and Mr. The status report shows that the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 28.03.2025 and there is no early likelihood of the conclusion of the trial, therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel adopted these submissions. 5. Mr. Ajit Sharma and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of a heinous offence. They had given beatings to the deceased, which led to his death. They along with the other villagers cremated the dead body to destroy the evidence; hence, they prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P ., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The prosecution is relying upon the statements of Rahul Kumar recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and Jagdish Sharma recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement on oath under section 164 of CrPC that six villagers came to his house. Umesh beat him with a stick. They took him to Sheetla Mata Temple Complex where Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajeev gave him beatings. Tikkam Chand was lying near Hawan Kund. He had sustained bleeding injuries. The villagers beat him and another person. The dead body of Tikkam Chand was cremated. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal carried the dead body to the crematorium. Rajesh, Shankar Lal, Umesh, Geeta Ram, Ashish, Susheel, Happy, Om Parkash, Tara Chand, Rajeev and other persons were present in the crematorium. 12. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Jagdish, Lakshay, Nitin, Ram Lal, Nikhil and Bhanu gave him beatings. Rajesh, Shankar Lal, Umesh, Geeta Ram, Ashish, Susheel, Happy, Om Parkash, Tara Chand, Rajeev and other persons were present in the crematorium. 12. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Jagdish, Lakshay, Nitin, Ram Lal, Nikhil and Bhanu gave him beatings. Umesh dragged him to Sheetla Mata Temple where Rajeev, Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Rajesh, Harish and Susheel were present. Rajeev, Tara Chand and other persons gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal and Umesh carried the dead body to the crematorium. Rajeev, Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh, Ram Lal, Harish, Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu, Om Prakash, Happy and Jagdish were present in the crematorium. 13. Jagdish stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Umesh gave beatings to Sewa Nand and dragged Rahul. Rahul was taken to Sheetla Mata temple where Rajeev, Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar, Rajesh, Harish and Susheel were present. Umesh, Tara Chand, Asheesh and other persons gave him beatings. Umesh gave beatings with a stick. Rajeev Sharma, Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh, Ram Lal, Harish, Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu and Om Parkash were present in the crematorium. The villagers cremated the dead body. 14. It is apparent from the statements that no specific role is ascribed to Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, and Shankar Lal by Jagdish and Rahul in their statements. They were stated to be present along with the co-accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Susheel, Harish and Rajesh who were stated to be initially present in the temple complex as well as in the crematorium with these persons. There is a force in the submission of Mr. Ajay Kochchar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the case of these petitioners cannot be distinguished from the persons released on bail and once they were held entitled to bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail cannot be denied to the petitioners Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal on the principle of parity. 15. The statements of Rahul and Jagdish show that petitioner- Rajeev had given beatings to Tikkam Chand and Rahul along with Tara Chand and Ramesh. Tikkam Chand succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 15. The statements of Rahul and Jagdish show that petitioner- Rajeev had given beatings to Tikkam Chand and Rahul along with Tara Chand and Ramesh. Tikkam Chand succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, there is sufficient material on record to connect petitioner-Rajiv with the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence alleged against the petitioner-Rajiv is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment under Section 302. Hence, petitioner Rajeev cannot be released on bail considering the nature of the offence and the gravity of punishment. 16. It has been asserted that petitioner Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal are the permanent residents of District Shimla. This was not stated to be incorrect. They asserted that they do not have any criminal antecedents. This was also not stated to be incorrect. Since they have roots in the society, therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. 17. It was submitted that the petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. However, mere apprehension is not sufficient to deny bail because the apprehension can be removed by imposing suitable conditions. The prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail in case the petitioners misuse the liberty granted to them. 18. In view of the above, the petitions filed by Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal are allowed whereas the petition filed by Rajeev Sharma is dismissed. The petitioners Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioners Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against them and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioners will not leave their present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the addresses of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioners will surrender their passport(s), if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number(s) and social media contacts to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number(s) or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 20. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.