Himachal Pradesh High Court

__________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 July, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.311 of 2024 Reserved on: 01.07.2024 Decided on: 05 July, 2024 __________________________________________________________ Aman Preet Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghav Goel, Advocate.


For the respondent:                   Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy
                                      Advocate    General, for the
                                      respondent-State.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Aman Preet Singh [who is in

custody since 11.11.2023] has come up before this

Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as

'Cr.P.C.'], originating from FIR No.225/2023, dated

23.10.2023, under Sections 304, 109, 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'] and

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sections 20, 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter

referred to as 'Act'], registered at Police Station [Sadar]

Hamirpur, District Hamirpur [H.P.].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Mr. N.S. Chandel, Learned

Senior Counsel for the bail petitioner-accused, Aman

Preet Singh, is that on 23.10.2023, a student of M.Tech

at National Institutes of Technology, Hamirpur [HP],

[hereinafter referred to as 'NIT'], namely Sujal Sharma

was found dead in Room No.AD-104, of Dhauladhar

Boys Hostel, NIT Hamirpur.

2(i). Consequent upon his death, the Hostel

Warden informed the police as well as the father of

deceased-student, Sujal Sharma. Thereafter, the police

and the father of the deceased-student reached the

Institute, upon which, his statement was recorded and

thereafter FIR was registered on 23.10.2023, by the

police authorities.

2(ii). Consequent upon the registration of FIR, the

police started the investigation in the matter. Pursuant to

this, the police authorities arrested two students, Varun

Sharma and Varnit Verma on 23.10.2023. The police

authorities arrested one Rajat Sharma alias Gifty, on

23.10.2023, on the allegation that it was Rajat Sharma,

who had resorted to the illegal sale and purchase of

Heroin/Chitta, to the students, Varun Sharma, as all of

them [Rajat, Varun & Varnit] consumed the

Herion/Chitta along with the deceased student, Sujal

Sharma and due to the overdose of Herion/Chitta, Sujal

Sharma consequently died. During investigation it

transpired that three other persons, Ishant Rana, was

accompanying Rajat Sharma @ Gifty at the time of his

arrest and two others, namely Ravi Chopra and Ankush

Sharma, who were alleged to have supplied the

Herion/Chitta, to Rajat Sharma @ Gifty were also

arrested by police on 31.10.2023 and 01.11.2023,

respectively.

2(iii). Bail petitioner, Aman Preet Singh, was

running a Rehabilitation Centre at Upper Bhangal, Amb,

District Una along with his cousin Karam Pal Singh.

2(iv). It is averred that the bail petitioner filed a

petition, before the Learned Special Judge, Hamirpur,

vide Bail Application No.235 of 2023, which was

dismissed on 21.12.2023, Annexure P-1.

2(v). Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of bail

on 21.12.2023, the instant bail petition has been filed,

stating that the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely

implicated and there is no direct or indirect evidence

connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is

further averred that the petitioner is a respectable person

of the society and there is no apprehension of his fleeing

away from justice. It is averred that nothing is to be

recovered from the petitioner and the investigation is

complete and his custody is no longer required by the

police. The petitioner has given an undertaking before

this Court, that in case of bail, he shall abide by all the

terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court in

case of his enlargement on bail. It is further averred that

the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.11.2023 and

is lodged in Sub-Jail, Hamirpur, as on day.

In the aforesaid background, it is prayed that

the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in view of the facts

referred to above.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. Instant bail application [Cr.MP(M) No.311 of

2024] was taken up by this Court on 07.03.2024 when,

the Status Report dated 06.03.2024 was filed by the State

Authorities. On 18.03.2024, the State Authorities

furnished Status Report dated 17.03.2024, and on

03.04.2024, the State Authorities furnished a Fresh

Status Report dated 02.04.2024, on the instructions of

SHO, Police Station Hamirpur. The matter was then

listed on 08.04.2024 when, the State Authorities

furnished another Status Report dated 07.04.2024. The

copies of the above Status Report(s) were supplied to the

Learned Senior Counsel, so as to enable him to make

submissions in the matter.

3(i). Though the matter was heard on 27.05.2024

and the judgment was reserved but since certain points

were to be clarified from the State. Accordingly the matter

was listed on 21.06.2024, and then on 27.06.2027 when

State filed Annexure A-7 [taken on record] and the matter

was finally heard, on 01.07.2024 with the consent of the

parties.

            STAND OF STATE             AUTHORITIES      IN
            STATUS REPORTS:

4. A perusal of the voluminous Status Reports

dated 06.03.2024, 17.03.2024, 02.04.2024 and

07.04.2024, reveal that the same are pari materia.

4(i). A perusal of the Status Reports, referred to

above, reveal that the State Authorities have set up

a case that the bail petitioner [Aman Preet Singh] and

his cousin Karam Pal alias Kamma had been running

a Rehabilitation Centre at Upper Bhangal, Tehsil Amb,

District Una, in the name of Jeevan Jot Durg Counseling

& Rehabilitation Centre. The Status Reports reveal that

there were bank transactions between Aman Preet Singh

[Bail Petitioner] and Karam Pal alias Kamma, who is

stated to be his cousin which run into lacs of rupees.

4(ii). The Status Reports reveal that during

Investigation, the bail petitioner stated before the police

that the bail petitioner [Aman Preet Singh] as well as his

cousin, Karam Pal alias Kamma were working in

Rehabilitation Centre for Kulvinder Singh alias Kaka.

Status Reports indicate that the bail petitioner [Aman

Preet Singh] and his cousin Karam Pal alias Kamma were

arrested by the police on 11.11.2023 and they were made

to undergo medical examination before Dr. RKGMC,

Hamirpur, when, his bold and urine samples were taken

and sent to RFSL, and the RFSL Report indicates that

Acetaminophen, Ketamine, Tramadole and

Norhydrocodone was found in blood and urine of the bail

petitioner.

4(iii). Status Report states that in case the bail

petitioner [Aman Preet Singh] is released then his

enlargement on bail will obstruct the arrest of the main

supplier Kulvinder Singh alias Kaka, who is still

absconding. Status Reports express that there is every

likelihood that the bail petitioner may indulge in similar

activities.

4(iv). During the course of arguments, Learned State

Counsel relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in

Cr.MP (M) No.126 of 2024, titled as Rajat Sharma versus

State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 28.05.2024, to

buttress his submissions that once the bail of co-

accused, Rajat Sharma, has been rejected by this Court,

then, the bail plea of the petitioner [Aman Preet Singh]

may also be rejected on the same lines.

In this background, the State Authorities have

prayed for the dismissal of the instant bail application.

5. Heard Mr. N.S. Chandel, Learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. Raghav Goel, learned counsel

and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate

General for the respondent-State.

6. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be

relevant to take note of the provisions of Sections 304,

109, 120-B of IPC and Sections 20, 21 and 29 of ND&PS

Act, which reads as under:-

"SECTION 304 OF IPC

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

SECTION 109 OF IPC

109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.-- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. SECTION 120-B OF IPC 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where

- 10 -

no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

SECTION 20 of ND&PS ACT

20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.--

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,--

(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub- clause (b),--

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

- 11 -

rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

SECTION 21 of ND&PS ACT

21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations-

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable ,--

(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

- 12 -

SECTION 29 of ND&PS ACT

29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.-

(1) Whoever abets or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.

(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-

(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or

(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India."

7. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for

post arrest bail-regular bail, in general 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

- 13 -

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). While dealing with the case for grant of

bail, 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

- 14 -

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;

- 15 -

(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. 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.

8. In order to examine the claim for bail,

under ND&PS Act, this Court deems it necessary to have

a recap of the Preamble of the Act, which reads as

under:

" An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith"

- 16 -

8(i). Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS

Act does not have any vested right or an automatic

claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on

the ground that the quantity of contraband, allegedly

involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while

considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under

the NDPS, relating to either small quantity or an

intermediate quantity, still the claim is required to be

tested in the backdrop of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code

of Criminal Procedure {herein, Cr P C}, and also in the

context of the time tested broad parameters mandated

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to 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

- 17 -

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.

ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASE

10. After taking into account the entirety of the

facts and circumstances, borne out from the voluminous

Status Reports, and the statutory provisions and the

mandate of law, as referred to above, this Court is of the

- 18 -

considered view, that the bail petitioner [Aman Preet

Singh] is entitled to the concession of enlargement on bail

for the following reasons:

10(i). The matter on record do not point out the

prima facie accusation against the bail petitioner.

10(ii). The material on record including Status

Reports filed by the State Authorities nowhere suggest

that the deceased student [Sujal Sharma] died in the

Hostel Room in NIT Hamirpur on account of the

narcotics-contraband i.e. Heroin/Chitta purchased from

the bail petitioner.

10(iii). Moreover, there is nothing on record to

indicate that the deceased student [Sujal Sharma] died

due to overdose of Herion/Chitta, supplied by the bail

petitioner [Aman Preet Singh].

10(iv). To the contrary, the status report indicates

that the student [Sujal Sharma] had died due to overdose

of narcotics, which was supplied to the deceased Sujal

Sharma and other two students Varnit Verma & Varun

- 19 -

Sharma by the co-accused Rajat Sharma alias Gifty, and

moreover, when all of them [Rajat, Varnit, Varun and

deceased student [Sujal Sharma], had consumed

Herion/Chitta together, in the Hostel room. In addition to

this, the Status Reports do not indicate any connection

of the petitioner [Aman Preet Singh] with Rajat Sharma

alias Gifty or the students Varun Sharma and Varnit

Verma and the deceased Sujal Sharma, as referred to

above.

10(v). The Status Report(s) do not point out anything

revealing any bank transactions between bail petitioner

[Aman Preet Singh] with another accused, Rajat Sharma

@ Gifty [who allegedly supplied contraband to students of

NIT Hamirpur].

10(vi). Status Reports reveal that though the Police

Authorities had inspected the Rehabilitation Centre,

being run by the bail petitioner, in presence of Pradhan

of Village Upper Bhanjal (Amb), and nothing

objectionable was found in the aforesaid Rehabilitation

- 20 -

Centre. In absence of any recovery of

narcotics/contraband, the accusation is not made out.

10(vii). Merely because some percentage of narcotics

has been detected in urine and blood of the petitioner,

cannot from the basis of connecting the petitioner with

the death and the deceased student [Sujal Sharma] and

other students, as referred to above.

10(viii). Status reports do not point out that any

narcotics or psychotropic substances [Heroin/Chitta] as

in this case, was recovered from the bail petitioner. Even,

there is no material to suggest prima facie that the bail

petitioner had indulged himself in sale or purchase of

contraband in relation to FIR No.225 of 2023, dated

23.10.2023, in the instant case.

Taking into account the above facts and

circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that

the prima facie accusation under Sections 304, 109 and

120-B of IPC is not made out against the petitioner.

Even, the offences under Section 20 and 21 of the

- 21 -

ND&PS Act, are prima facie not borne out, against the

bail petitioner. There is no material to prima facie

connect the petitioner with the offences relating to

possession sale, purchase or use or inter-State import of

Heroin/Chitta by the petitioner with the students,

including the deceased student Sujal Sharma, NIT

Hamirpur or with their supplier Rajat Sharma alias Gifty

as referred to above.

10(ix). The Status Report filed by the State

Authorities do not indicate any prima facie material to

gather "abetting" or "criminal conspiracy", the petitioner,

in peculiar facts of this case, in view of the discussion

made in Paras 10(iii) to (viii) supra and thus the

accusation under Section 29 is prima facie not borne out

at this stage in the instant case.

11. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel,

contends that mere consumption/use of a small quantity

is punishable for a term which may extend to one year;

but in the present case, the petitioner has already

- 22 -

undergone six months of detention [since 11.11.2023],

till day; on mere allegations which are yet to be proved in

trial in accordance with law. Moreover, the Personal

liberty of the petitioner-accused, cannot be curtailed on

mere suspension and more so, when, the prima facie

accusation is not made out against the bail petitioner in

the instant case.

12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.S. Chandel,

further submits that detection of Acetaminophen,

Ketamine, Tramadole and Norhydrocodone in urine and

blood samples as per the RFSL report cannot be the

basis for denying the bail; for the reason that there is no

provision in the ND&PS Act mandating punishment, in

case of, medicinal use in which an eventuality, by virtue

of Section 32 of ND&PS Act any such offence, for which

no punishment is prescribed under the Act, the same is

punishable up to six months or with fine or with both. In

this scenario, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that

the petitioner has already undergone six months of

- 23 -

detention, as on day.

13. The apprehension of the State Authorities that

in case the petitioner is released then, efforts of the

police to arrest the master-mind, Kulvinder Singh alias

Kaka will be obstructed. This plea of the State

Authorities, is without any force, for the reason, that the

material on record suggests, that the State Authorities

had not made an effort for arresting Kulvinder Singh

alias Kaka after 12.03.2024, till day. The inaction or

contemplation to arrest Kulvinder Singh alias Kaka,

cannot be the ground for denying bail to the petitioner, in

the instant case.

14. Status Reports do not point out any other

adversarial circumstance nor any past criminal

antecedents have been pointed out against the bail

petitioner [Aman Preet Singh].

15. So far as the apprehension of the State

Authorities that the petitioner after enlargement on bail

may indulge in activities relating to sale/purchase or use

- 24 -

of prohibited drugs/psychotropic substances can be

safeguarded by imposing stricter conditions, as are being

imposed by this Court in the instant case, as referred to

hereinunder.

16. Even plea of the State Authorities that once

this Court has passed order on 28.05.2024, rejecting

bail in case of a co-accused, Rajat Sharma [Cr.MP(M)

No.126 of 2024] then, the case of the petitioner [Aman

Preet Singh] may kindly be dismissed on the same lines.

This contention of Learned State Counsel is

without merit, for the reason, that there no prima facie

accusation is borne out against the petitioner. Moreover,

the role of the petitioner is altogether different vis-à-vis

the role attributed to Rajat Sharma @ Gifty, who was

directly connected with the alleged offence resulting in

sale or purchase and use of contraband with the

students including the deceased student, Sujal Sharma.

The denial of bail to another accused, Rajat Sharma @

Gifty, who was directly involved prima facie with the

- 25 -

offence cannot be the ground to deny bail to the

petitioner, against whom no prima facie accusation is

borne out at this stage.

CONCLUSION:

17. In view of the above discussion, the instant

petition is allowed, in peculiar facts of this case, and the

State Authorities are directed to enlarge the petitioner

[Aman Preet Singh] on bail, subject to observance of the

following conditions:-

(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release the bail petitioner [Aman Preet Singh] on furnishing personal bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lac] each to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned;

(ii) Petitioner shall abide by all other conditions, as may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, if any, in view of this order;

(iii) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter.

Any involvement or abetting shall entail the withdrawal of concession in terms of this order.

(iv) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court.

(v) Petitioner shall not hinder the smooth flow of the investigation and shall join the investigation, as and when called, by the Investigating Agency;

- 26 -

(vi) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without prior information of the Court;

(vii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence in any manner;

(viii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses;

(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove, shall entail cancellation of bail automatically; and

(x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for alteration/modification of this Court, for violation as in (i) to (iv) supra, in the facts and circumstances so necessitates at any time herein-after.

(xi) Petitioner shall join the investigation and shall participate in the trial in five cases which are pending against him, failure to participate in the investigation or in the trial in any of the said cases shall entail itself be a ground for cancellation of the bail automatically in this case.

18. Any observations made herein-above, shall

not be construed in any manner as an expression

of opinion on the merit of case and these observations

are made only, for the disposal of the instant bail

application.

19. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of

this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High

- 27 -

Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities

concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for

production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify

passing of order from Website of the High Court.

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is

allowed and the pending miscellaneous application(s),

if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 05, 2024 (Shivender)

DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HP JUDICIARY, Phone=

BELI RAM 2833cfb37b2a767da3846af933f0f88aac7327ed1 0a84b49958a155fd13fdce7, PostalCode= 171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER = 99036c6420687464b3b9aea1b98344105bf9304

SHARMA 7aabb7f31e1c96f547b9236f6, CN=BELI RAM SHARMA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: 12345678 Date: 2024.07.06 14:43:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0