Reserved On: 16.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6162 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 16.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 May, 2025

2025:HHC:16489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 2990 of 2024 Reserved on: 16.05.2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025.

    Sanjay Kumar                                                                 ...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. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was

arrested vide FIR No. 18 of 2022, dated 15.01.2025, registered for

the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Baddi, District Solan,

H.P. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner and the

deceased were neighbours. The deceased had not returned to his

home on 15.1.2022. The wife of the deceased searched for him and

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

2025:HHC:16489

found him lying dead in the petitioner's room. His body was

covered with a bed sheet. The matter was reported to the police.

The police conducted the investigation and found that the

petitioner had illicit relations with the informant, the wife of the

deceased. The petitioner had strangulated the deceased when he

was in a state of intoxication. The police filed a charge sheet

before the Court on 30.3.2022. The prosecution has cited 21

witnesses in the main challan and 04 witnesses in the

supplementary challan. The matter is being listed for prosecution

evidence since 22.6.2024, however, only one witness has been

examined so far. The main witness has resiled from his statement

and has not supported the prosecution's case. The petitioner has

completed 02 years and 11 months in custody, and there is no

likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is the

sole breadwinner of the family. He would abide by 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 police received information that one person

was lying dead in a room. The police visited the spot, and the

informant made a statement that she was married to Rahul

Kumar Yadav (since deceased). Rahul was residing with his

2025:HHC:16489

family. Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner) was residing in the

adjacent room. The petitioner, Sanjay, called Rahul to his room.

They consumed liquor. The informant, called Rahul who told her

that he would come after some time. When he did not return till

10.00 PM, the informant went to the petitioner's room. She asked

about her husband, and the petitioner replied that he (deceased)

had left the room; however, she found that her husband was lying

under the cot in the room, and he was covered with a bed sheet.

She checked her husband and found him dead. The police

registered the FIR and conducted investigation. The cause of

death was asphyxia secondary to compression of the neck,

consistent with antemortem throttling as per the autopsy report.

As per the report of analysis, 270.55% proof alcohol was found in

the blood of the deceased. The police filed the charge sheet on

11.1.2024. FIR No. 17/15 dated 17.3.2015, for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 of IPC

was registered against the petitioner in Police Station

Hayatnagar, District Sambhal. The prosecution has cited 21

witnesses out of whom 03 witnesses have been examined and 19

witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed on

2025:HHC:16489

23.6.2025 and 24.6.2025 for recording the statements of

prosecution witnesses'. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely

implicated. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses out of whom

only 03 witnesses have been examined. There is a delay in the

progress of the trial, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is

being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner

is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He would

intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The

petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to commit a

similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed

that the present petition be dismissed.

2025:HHC:16489

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

"12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

"14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice", has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can

2025:HHC:16489

legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied)

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose "any condition" on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: --

"15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed." (Emphasis supplied)

14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed:

"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal

2025:HHC:16489

court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial." (Emphasis supplied)

8. The present petition has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. The status report shows that the deceased visited the

petitioner's room, where they consumed liquor. The informant

went to call the deceased, and the petitioner told her that the

deceased had already left the room. She found the deceased kept

beneath the cot, and his dead body was covered with the bed

sheet. He was found dead. The postmortem report shows that the

deceased had died due to strangulation. He was last seen alive

with the petitioner. Therefore, the burden is upon the petitioner

to explain what happened to him in his room. The petitioner has

not provided any explanation regarding the circumstances that

led to his death; therefore, prima facie, it can be inferred that the

petitioner murdered the deceased. Murder is a heinous offence

punishable by death. Keeping in view the nature of the offence

and the severity of the punishment, the petitioner cannot be

released on bail.

2025:HHC:16489

10. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of

the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of a

violation of his right to a speedy trial. This submission cannot be

accepted. It is apparent from the certified copies of the order

sheets that the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge

on 23.8.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time

for consideration on the charge on 10.2.2023, 14.8.2023 and

9.10.2023. The charge was framed on 9.1.2024. Learned Trial

Court had also noticed on 3.9.2024 that the Court was under an

obligation to conduct the trial daily. This order shows the concern

of the learned Trial Court to decide the case expeditiously. The

prosecution has examined three witnesses, and the matter is

listed on 23.6.2025 and 24.6.2025 for recording the statements of

the prosecution's witnesses. Therefore, there is no delay on the

part of the Court or the prosecution. The delay occurred because

of the adjournments sought by the petitioner, and the petitioner

cannot take any advantage from the delay caused by him.

11. It was submitted that the main witnesses have not

supported the prosecution's case. The photocopy of the statement

made by Rinku was also filed in support of this submission. It is

not permissible to grant bail after the commencement of the trial

2025:HHC:16489

on the ground that prosecution witnesses did not support the

prosecution's case. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that

ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court

should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the

commencement of the trial and grant bail because of some

discrepancy in the testimony. It was observed: -

"14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused.

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e.,

(i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event that the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."

2025:HHC:16489

12. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the

same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to

approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a

reasonable time.

13. 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 29th May, 2025 (Chander)