Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 883 (HP)

Rajeev v. State of HP

2025-05-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as, all the bail applications have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.12/2025, dated 22.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) andSection 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Nankhari, District Shimla, H.P. 2. These bail applications have been filed by the above-named applicants, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), by surrendering themselves to the custody of this Court, for releasing them on bail in FIR in question. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case. 4. As per applicants, they are ready to abide by any conditions, imposed by this Court, in case, ordered to be released on bail, in the abovesaid case. 5. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicants, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, the relief, as claimed in the applications, is given to them. 6. Since, the applicants had surrendered to the custody of this Court on 25.03.2025, as such, the State was directed to file the status report. Consequently, the status report has been filed. 7. In the status report, it has been disclosed that complainant-Jawahar Lal (respondent No.2) made a complaint to the police, mentioning therein that he is the permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and according to him, on 21.03.2025, when, he along with his son, was working in his land, some people of their village came to the boundary of their land and stopped him from working and started quarreling and abusing him and uttered the words ‘tumhare liye rasta band kar denge or makan foonk denge or tu yaha akele rehta hai. Tu Dhagi hai’. 7.1. Complainant has further mentioned in the complaint that he lives alone and as such, there was no witness at the spot. 7.2. Tu Dhagi hai’. 7.1. Complainant has further mentioned in the complaint that he lives alone and as such, there was no witness at the spot. 7.2. Subsequently, police registered the FIR in question and as per orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla, the investigation of the case was assigned to SDPO, Rampur. Spot was visited by the IO and spot map was prepared. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, under Section 180 of BNSS. 7.3. On the basis of above facts, vide order dated 25.03.2025, the applicants were ordered to be released on interim bail and the matter was adjourned for 28.03.2025. 8. On 28.03.2025, police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the IO was busy in law and order duty at Shimla, as such, the applicants could not be associated in the investigation. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned to 04.04.2025. 9. On 04.04.2025, police has filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that all the applicants had joined the investigation on 30.03.2025, 01.04.2025, 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025. It has also been mentioned in the status report that on 03.04.2025, complainant-Jawahar Lal has produced the copy of the Nakal Jamabandi and Musabi of land bearing Khasra No.834, regarding which, he has alleged that 20 small apple plants were uprooted by the applicants. Those documents were taken into possession. 10. In the status report, which has been filed today, it has been mentioned that on 30.04.2025, demarcation report was obtained. 10.1. In nutshell, it is the case of the police that the applicants have been associated in the investigation. 11. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1/State to dismiss the applications. 12. Arguments, which have been advanced by learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1/State, have also been adopted by Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, appearing for complainant/respondent No.2. 13. Heard. 14. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and pursuant to the order, passed by this Court, applicants have joined the investigation. No further enquiry is required to be made by the police and the role, allegedly attributed to the applicants, will be proved, during the trial. As such, bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 15. No further enquiry is required to be made by the police and the role, allegedly attributed to the applicants, will be proved, during the trial. As such, bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 15. Except the present case, no other criminal history of the applicants has been mentioned in the status reports, which have been filed on various dates, nor the same has been argued by learned Additional Advocate General, during the course of arguments. 16. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 25.03.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, the interim order dated 25.03.2025, is made absolute. However, this order shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants 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 applicants 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 violated by any of the applicants. 19. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case files i.e. CrMPs(M) No.672 to 676 of 2025.