Rajeev vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 331 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rajeev vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 2 May, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

2025:HHC:12248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMPs(M) No. : 671 to 676 of 2025 Decided on : 02.05.2025 CrMP(M) No.671 of 2025

Rajeev ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents

CrMP(M) No.672 of 2025

Har Pal ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents

CrMP(M) No.673 of 2025

Kuldeep ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents

CrMP(M) No.674 of 2025

Sanjeev ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents

CrMP(M) No.675 of 2025

Jai Drath ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents 2 2025:HHC:12248

Manoj @Illu ...Applicant Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the applicant(s) : Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Dy.SP Naresh Sharma, SDPO Rampur, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Virender Singh, Judge

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') and

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

3 2025:HHC:12248

Section 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.

4 2025:HHC:12248

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. 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 5 2025:HHC:12248

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.

6 2025:HHC:12248

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 7 2025:HHC:12248

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.

8 2025:HHC:12248

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.

( Virender Singh ) Judge May 02, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)