IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Rajeev - Appellant
Versus
State of HP And another - Respondent
CRMPM 671 of 2025
Decided On : 02-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 351(2), 352 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(s) - Bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Applicants claimed innocence and readiness to abide by conditions for bail - Investigation completed, and applicants joined the investigation - Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law. (Paras 1, 14, 16)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - Applicants must join investigation, not leave India without permission, and not influence witnesses - Observations made do not reflect on merits of the case. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
Bail applications were filed in FIR No.12/2025, alleging that the applicants were involved in a dispute where the complainant claimed threats and damage to property. The applicants surrendered to custody and sought bail.
Findings of Court:
The interim bail order was confirmed, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and attendance at trial.
Issues: The main issues included the applicants' involvement in the alleged crime and the appropriateness of bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment and that the applicants' cooperation in the investigation was sufficient to warrant bail.
Result: Interim bail order made absolute, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
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’) andSection 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.
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 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.
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 r
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants must cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions.
Bail applications cannot be dismissed as pre-trial punishment; applicants are presumed innocent until trial concludes.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not required and the investigation is complete, emphasizing the applicant's availability for trial.
The court confirmed interim bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and prohibiting pre-trial punishment, while imposing conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law; bail cannot be denied without evidence necessitating custodial interrogation.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
The presumption of innocence mandates that an accused cannot be held in custody indefinitely without evidence, and bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants cooperating with the investigation are entitled to release.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.