Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 835 (HP)

Rahul Khan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) The applicant, apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.48 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025, registered, under Sections 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), and Section 28 of the Arms Act, has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, as, he has no role to play, in commission of the alleged crime. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he belongs to a respectable family and is a law abiding citizen. According to him, the allegations levelled against him are false and far away from the truth. 4. The applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued under Section 482 BNSS. 5. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, which was dismissed on 10.04.2025. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.02.2025, the complainant has submitted a complaint to police of Police Station, Nalagarh, disclosing therein, that on 13.02.2025, she has gone to the house Neha wife of Ishaq Ali, at Nangal Chikani, where Rahul (applicant) had threatened her, by showing Pistol with dire consequences. 7.1. The complainant has further disclosed in the complaint that Deep Chaudhary has also told her to abort and take rupees 5-7 lac. According to the complainant, when she refused to abort, he has also threatened her. When she tried to return back, he had stopped her to proceed further, by locking the gate. 7.2. According to the complainant, thereafter, Dilshad has taken her to the room of her friend Pooja and on the way, he has told her that she has messed with the wrong people and they will kill her. 7.3. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. 7.2. According to the complainant, thereafter, Dilshad has taken her to the room of her friend Pooja and on the way, he has told her that she has messed with the wrong people and they will kill her. 7.3. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. During investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses have been recorded. The applicant, who earlier was absconding, on 15.03.2025, at his own, has joined the investigation, by coming to the Police Station. On that day, when, he was directed to sit in the remand room, he has put his pistol along with licence on the table. Thereafter, on the pretext of attending the phone call, he has left the police station/absconded. His revolver 32” MK-1SAFKANPUR 2004 F7490, along with its licence has been taken into possession. 9. It is the further case of the police that the applicant had filed application, for anticipatory bail, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, however, the same was dismissed on 10.04.2025. 10. It has been prayed that neither the applicant is required to be interrogated, nor anything is to be recovered from him or at his instance. 11. After perusing the status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant on 11.04.2025 and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 28.04.2025. 12. Today, similar status report has been filed, by stating that neither the applicant is required to be interrogated, nor anything is to be recovered from him. 13. In the status reports, a specific stand has been taken by the police that neither the applicant is required to be interrogated, nor anything is to be recovered from him. The weapon of offence allegedly used, in the crime, has already been taken into possession, by the police. The statements of the witnesses have also been recorded. 14. When the Police has not made any prayer for custodial interrogation of the applicant, as such, there is no legal justification, for this Court, to reject the application, by withdrawing the interim protection, which was given to the applicant, vide order dated 11.04.2025. 15. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, in the complaint, will be proved, during the trial. 16. 15. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, in the complaint, will be proved, during the trial. 16. The bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of law. 17. Except the present case, no other case is found to have been registered against the applicant. In such situation, presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the applicant. 18. When, the police do not require the custodial interrogation of the applicant, then, the interim order dated 11.04.2025, is liable to be made absolute. 19. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 11.04.2025, 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.48 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025, registered, under Sections 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, and Section 28 of the Arms Act, with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 20. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :- a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will 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. 21. 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. 22. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 23. 21. 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. 22. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 23. 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 the applicant.