Himachal Pradesh High Court

Veena Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 May, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

                                                                                      2025:HHC:16995




IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                CrMPs(M) No. : 1038 to 1041 of 2025
                          Decided on : 30.05.2025
CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025

Veena Devi                                                                       ...Applicant
                                              Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh                                                        ...Respondent


CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025

Sanjeev Kumar                                                                    ...Applicant
                                              Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh                                                        ...Respondent

CrMP(M) No.1040 of 2025

Raj Kumari                                                                       ...Applicant
                                              Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh                                                        ...Respondent

CrMP(M) No.1041 of 2025

Manoj Kumar                                                                      ...Applicant
                                              Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh                                                        ...Respondent

Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1

For the applicant(s)                    :        Mr.    Ganesh                      Barowalia,
                                                 Advocate.



1   Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
                              2                      2025:HHC:16995



For the respondent     :         Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.
                                 H.S.   Rawat,     Additional
                                 Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

The above-titled bail applications are being

disposed of by the common order, as, all the four bail

applications have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR

No.71/2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Sections

318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

(hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS'), with Police Station

Haroli, District Una, H.P.

2. These bail applications have been filed by the

above-named applicants, under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred

to as 'BNSS'), for passing a direction, in their favour,

directing the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station

Haroli, District Una, H.P., to release them on bail, in the

event of their arrest, in the above-noted FIR.

3. According to the applicants, they are innocent

persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present

case.

4. It is the case of the applicants that they have no

connection, whatsoever, with the crime, as alleged against

them, in the FIR in question.

3 2025:HHC:16995

5. Elaborating their stand, it is the further case of

the applicants that Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M)

No.1039 of 2025) had entered into Agreement to Sell dated

04.05.2023, with the complainant, for a total sale

consideration of Rs.37,10,000/- and an advance payment

of Rs.20,00,000/- was made, at the time of Agreement to

Sell and remaining payment was to be made, at the time of

execution of the sale deed. However, as per the case, set up

by the applicants, the sale deed could not be executed

within the prescribed period and thereafter, the said period

was extended firstly up to 03.07.2023, then 15.09.2023

and thereafter, 16.12.2023.

6. It is the further case of the applicants that due

to the non-execution of the sale deed, in favour of the

complainant, he had filed a civil suit for possession by way

of specific performance of Agreement to Sell, bearing Civil

Suit No.10/2025, which is stated to be pending in the

Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, H.P.

and is stated to be fixed for 21.06.2025.

7. All these facts have been pleaded to show that

the bone of contention, between the parties, is the

Agreement to Sell, on the basis of which, the suit for

specific performance has been filed. In other words, they 4 2025:HHC:16995

have asserted that the dispute, between the parties, is civil

in nature.

8. It is the further case of the applicants that the

complainant wants to coerce them to extort money, on the

pretext of registration of FIR.

9. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Ganesh

Barowalia, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants,

has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicants, for

which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, any

direction is issued to the I.O./police of PS Haroli, in this

case.

10. Vide order dated 07.05.2025, State was directed

to file the status report.

11. As per the status report, which has been filed

on 07.05.2025, on 01.05.2025, complainant-Ashok Kumar

appeared before the police of PS Haroli and moved a

complaint, mentioning therein, that he is resident of the

address, as mentioned in the complaint, and on

29.04.2023, at about 11:00 am, Sanjeev Kumar, S/o

Krishan Singh (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and

Veena Devi @Beena Devi, W/o Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in

CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) came to him in his Village

Chhetra and thereafter, discussion had taken place, with 5 2025:HHC:16995

regard to the sale of land, measuring 0-13-43 bigha,

situated in Mohal Polian, Tehsil Dulehar, District Una. The

said land was stated to be mortgaged with HDFC Bank,

Branch Una and they have also disclosed that bank is

pressuring hard for the repayment of the amount. As such,

they have expressed their intention to sell the land.

11.1. As per further assertion, made by the

complainant, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M)

No.1039 of 2025) and Veena Devi @Beena Devi (applicant

in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) have demanded

Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money and also disclosed that

Rs.18,00,000/- is required to be deposited with the bank,

so that the bank could not declare them defaulter. They

have assured that after depositing the amount in their

account and getting the land redeemed, they will execute

the sale deed.

11.2. Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in

CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025) and his wife Veena Devi

(applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025) had also shown

the land on the spot. Subsequently, bargain was struck for

a sum of Rs.53,000/- per marla. Rs.2,00,000/- was given

as earnest money to Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M)

No.1039 of 2025) and Agreement to Sell was written and 6 2025:HHC:16995

the last date was fixed as 04.05.2023 and it has been

agreed to execute the Agreement to Sell on 04.05.2023.

Consequently, on 04.05.2023, he, along with his brother

Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025),

reached at Tehsil Haroli to get the Agreement to Sell

executed. When, they reached there, after some time,

Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025)

also reached there. As per the terms and conditions, the

Agreement to Sell was got prepared and he has provided

the bank account number for depositing the amount.

Consequently, Rs.18,00,000/- was agreed to be deposited

in the bank account and the last date of execution of the

Agreement to Sell was 05.07.2023. However, on the said

date, land was not got redeemed. Due to this fact, date was

extended till 15.09.2023. Meanwhile, the same was not got

redeemed. As such, the last date was extended up to

15.11.2023.

11.3. It is the further case of the complainant that till

15.11.2023, accused persons could not get the land

redeemed. When, the complainant had gone to the house of

Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025),

then, complainant found that he had already gone to

abroad. Thereafter, wife of Sanjeev Kumar, namely Veena 7 2025:HHC:16995

Devi (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1038 of 2025), his brother

Manoj Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1041 of 2025) and

mother Raj Kumari (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1040 of 2025)

had requested to extend the time up to 16.05.2023,

regarding which, Agreement was executed on 16.12.2023.

11.4. It is the further case of the complainant that on

09.02.2025, Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039

of 2025) forwarded a WhatsApp message, mentioning

therein, that he will come back by or before 22.03.2025.

11.5. It is the further case of the complainant that

after few days, the complainant came to know about

Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025)

that he had already executed Agreement to Sell, regarding

the land, with someone else. As such, a request has been

made to take action against the applicants.

11.6. On the basis of above facts, police registered the

FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into

motion.

11.7. During the investigation, on 05.05.2025,

complainant-Ashok Kumar produced the self-attested

copies of the Agreements dated 04.05.2023, 03.07.2023,

15.09.2023 and 16.12.2023, which were taken into

possession.

8 2025:HHC:16995

11.8. The self-attested copies of the Agreements were

accepted by the police, as, according to the complainant,

original have already been produced, before the Court at

Una.

11.9. It is the further case of the police that

applicant-Sanjeev Kumar had also executed the Agreement

to Sell with one Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Gian Chand, R/o VPO

Dulehar, Haroli and grabbed Rs.22,50,000/-, regarding

which, FIR No.06/24 dated 18.04.2024, under Sections

420, 406 and 120B of IPC has also been registered against

Sanjeev Kumar (applicant in CrMP(M) No.1039 of 2025)

with Police Station Tahliwal, District Una.

12. On the basis of the above stand, vide order

dated 07.05.2025, interim protection was given to the

applicant and the matter was adjourned for 16.05.2025.

13. On 16.05.2025, the supplementary status

report was filed, apprehending that the applicants,

although, joined the investigation, but, they are not

disclosing anything about the amount, grabbed by them,

nor, they are cooperating in the investigation.

14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made that in case, interim order is made absolute, the

applicants may coerce the witnesses and may also affect 9 2025:HHC:16995

the investigation. On 16.05.2025, matter was adjourned for

23.05.2025.

15. On 23.05.2025, police filed the supplementary

status report, taking the objection that the amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- is yet to be recovered, in this case and

thereafter, the matter was adjourned for today.

16. In view of the stand, taken by the applicants,

one thing is crystal clear that on the basis of the

Agreement to Sell, the complainant has filed a civil suit,

titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.', which

is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Senior Civil

Judge, Una.

17. The copy of the plaint has also been annexed

with the application, perusal of which, demonstrates that

the suit for possession by way of specific performance of

Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2023, which was extended

on various dates, was filed by complainant-Ashok Kumar

against the applicants and others. Meaning thereby, the

bone of contention, between the parties, is civil dispute.

18. Moreover, the criminal proceedings cannot be

equated with recovery proceedings. As such, the objection,

which has been taken by the police that the recovery of 10 2025:HHC:16995

Rs.20,00,000/- has not yet been made, is not liable to be

taken into consideration.

19. Even otherwise, the role, allegedly played by the

applicants, will be proved, during the trial and when, the

civil suit is pending adjudication, between the parties,

then, the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of

punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under

the law.

20. In the status report(s), filed before this Court,

the police could not spell out as to how the custodial

interrogation of the applicants is required.

21. Furthermore, the applicants are permanent

resident of District Una, as such, it cannot be apprehended

that in case, interim order is made absolute, they may not

be available for the trial.

22. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove,

this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled for

the relief, as claimed, in the application.

23. Consequently, interim order, dated 07.05.2025,

is made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be

released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR

No.71/2025, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Sections

318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, with Police Station Haroli, 11 2025:HHC:16995

District Una, H.P., subject to furnishing personal bonds in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

24. This order, however, shall be subject to the

following conditions:-

a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and 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 the appropriate application;

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