Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 27.9.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
2024:HHC:9565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2115 of 2024
Reserved on: 27.9.2024
Date of Decision: 4.10.2024.
Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, with SI Munshi
Ram from Police Station
Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the police arrested
the petitioner vide FIR No. 111 of 2024, for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 108, 85 of Bhartiya Nayaya
Sahinta 2023 (BNS) registered at Police Station Jogindernagar,
District Mandi, H.P. on 10.7.2024. The petitioner has been falsely
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2024:HHC:9565
implicated. The police have completed the investigation and no
recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is a
permanent resident of District Mandi, H.P. and there is no
chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and
conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the victim's sister Nisha Kumari was married to
Bittu Thakur in the year 2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
One child aged 10 years was born to her. The behaviour of the
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased was normal with
her, however, the accused, who is the father-in-law of the
deceased started harassing her, two years before her death. He
used to say that he was unable to meet their expenses and had
asked her to separate her kitchen. She had joined the kitchen
with the petitioner six months before the incident. The deceased
revealed to the informant four days before her death that the
petitioner was abusing her. He called the husband of the
deceased and told him that he would take the deceased with
him, however, the deceased's husband asked the informant not
to do so as he would manage the affairs himself. Nisha Kumari
hanged herself in her kitchen. The police registered the FIR and
2024:HHC:9565
recorded the witnesses' statements as per their version. The act
of the petitioner led the deceased to commit suicide. The
petitioner is in judicial custody. The challan has been prepared
and is to be presented before the Court.
3. I have heard Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated. As per the prosecution version, the deceased and
petitioner were residing separately and the petitioner could not
have harassed the deceased. The allegations against the
petitioner are general and are insufficient to constitute the
abetment. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are heinous. He compelled the deceased to
commit suicide. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition
be dismissed.
2024:HHC:9565
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the
parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip
Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -
12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which neces-
sarily means that such discretion would have to be exer-
cised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the
matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from
case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters
set out for considering the application for a grant of bail.
However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in
mind factors such as the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail
a conviction and the nature of evidence in support
of the accusations;
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses be-
ing tampered with or the apprehension of there be-
ing a threat for the complainant should also weigh
with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evi-
dence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a
prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of
the charge.
(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be con-
sidered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of
grant of bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
2024:HHC:9565
the normal course of events, the accused is entitled
to have an order of bail.
13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Ya-
dav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken
into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have
been explained in the following words:
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well settled. The court granting bail should ex-
ercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course. Though at the stage of grant-
ing bail a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merit of the case
need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate
in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding
why bail was being granted particularly where the
accused is charged with having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non-application of mind. It is also nec-
essary for the court granting bail to consider among
other circumstances, the following factors also be-
fore granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upad-
hyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598:
2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas
[(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)"
8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs
Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:
2024:HHC:9565
7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is
warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the
grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the
relevant principles were restated thus:
'9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of
this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.'
9. As per the prosecution, only the petitioner had
harassed the deceased and compelled her to commit suicide. The
2024:HHC:9565
petitioner's wife and his son were not arrayed as accused
because they had not contributed to the harassment of the
deceased. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe that out of three
members of the family, only one could have harassed the
deceased leading her to commit suicide. The other persons
would have protested against the harassment or they would
have been silent spectators. The fact that the harassment
continued implied that the other persons were silent spectators
and they would have abetted the harassment by omission. Thus,
the other persons would have been equally guilty with the
petitioner. The fact that they were not arrayed as accused makes
the prosecution's version suspect that the petitioner had
harassed the deceased.
10. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had
told the deceased that he was unable to bear her expenses. This
cannot constitute harassment. The deceased and her husband
were major and capable of earning themselves. Thus, the
petitioner was not bound to maintain them. The petitioner
refusing to maintain the petitioner, cannot constitute
harassment.
2024:HHC:9565
11. It was also stated in the status report that the
petitioner had compelled the deceased to separate her kitchen
which shows that the petitioner and the deceased were residing
separately and there can be no question of harassment.
12. The status report shows that the investigation is
complete and only the charge sheet is to be filed in the Court.
This means that the petitioner is not required for the
investigation and his continued detention will not serve any
fruitful purpose.
13. It was submitted that the petitioner can influence the
witnesses in case of his release on bail. This is a mere
apprehension and the bail cannot be denied based on the
apprehension alone. Suitable conditions can be imposed to
remove the apprehensions and the prosecution will be free to
approach the Court in case of violation of the conditions
imposed by the Court.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
2024:HHC:9565
While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms
and conditions: -
(i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when
directed to do so by means of a written hukamnama.
(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will
he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet
is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary
adjournments.
(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a
continuous period of seven days without furnishing the
address of intending a visit to the SHO, the Police Station
concerned and the Trial Court.
(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social
media contact 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 or social media
accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court
within five days from the date of the change.
15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to
file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
16. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
4th October, 2024 (Chander)
