IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail is to be granted in exceptional cases where the accusation is frivolous or groundless, and the court must consider the nature of the accusations, behavior of the parties, and statutory provisions in determining the need for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Three bail petitioners (namely, Anil Kumar Sood, Shivam Sood and Govind Singh and another employee, namely Bobby, who belonged to SC category) have come up before this Court seeking regular bail, under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure originating from F.I.R. No. 19 of 2024, dated 12.02.2024 registered with Police Station Sadar, Shimla for offences under Sections 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the four bail petitioners, namely, Anil Kumar Sood in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024, Shivam Sood in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024, Govind Singh in Cr. MP (M) No. 245 of 2024 and Ms Bobby in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024, as set up by them, is that on 30.01.2024, one lady, referred to as complainant ‘X’ alongwith her daughter came to the shop of the bail petitioners, namely, Arun Kumar Sood and Shivam Sood in which Govind Singh and Ms Bobby were employees, at about 3.30-4.00 p.m. It is averred that on reaching the shop, the complainant ‘X’ as referred to above, abused the petitioners and another employee. The bail petitioners have set up a case that the aforesaid complainant ‘X’ had visited the shop out of revenge for the reason that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, has instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in relation to bouncing of two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each against the complainant ‘X’. It is further averred that in two other cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, had got issued the notice under the statute against aforesaid complainant ‘X’. In addition to this, it is averred that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, intends to file some more complaints against the complainant ‘X’ in relation to other monetary transactions/liabilities which are outstanding/due from the complainant:

(i) In this background, it is averred that on 07.02.2024, the complainant ‘X’ had called the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, from mobile number of one Asha and then from mobile number of another Jai Malla forcing the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, to withdraw the cases instituted by him against her under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further averred, once two of the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated and some others were in process of being initiated to seek enforcement of his claim(s) and in these circumstances, there was no question of budging to the unlawful dictates of the complainant, therefore, on 12.02.2024, the complainant ‘X’ submitted an on-line complaint for registration of F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and thereafter the aforesaid complaint was transferred to the concerned Police Station leading to the registration of an F.I.R. No. 19 of 2024, as referred to above.

(ii) In Para 7 of the bail application, the bail petitioners have made an averment that this complainant ‘X’ had got another F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018, registered against more than 22 people, which is pending trial before the Learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, for offences under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act and Sections 354, 376 and 506 IPC. It is in this background, that the bail petitioners have approached this Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.]

3. (i) In Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024 titled as Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 titled as Shivam Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, was listed before this Court on 15.02.2024 and on surrender by the bail petitioners, their prayer for interim bail was taken up. Upon consideration, the interim bail was granted to these bail petitioners by this Court.

3. (ii) Likewise, the bail petitioner, Govind Singh and Ms Bobb