IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 603, 604 and 605 of 2025
Decided on : 02-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 316(2) and 3(5) - Bail application - Applicants sought bail in anticipation of arrest in a case involving allegations of criminal trespass and breach of trust - The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court laid down conditions for bail, including joining the investigation and not leaving the country without permission. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 20 of 2025, claimed innocence and alleged that the case was a counterblast to a previous FIR lodged by one applicant against the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the police had not established a case for custodial interrogation and granted bail to the applicants.
Issues: The main issues included the applicants' innocence and the appropriateness of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence must be upheld and that pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Result: Applications allowed; applicants ordered to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
The applicants, have filed the present applications, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) in case FIR No. 20 of 2025, dated 18.3.2025, registered under Sections 316 (2) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. By way of the present applications, the applicants have sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above-mentioned case, as, they are apprehending their arrest, in the said case.
3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case.
4. According to the applicants, applicant Abhishek Rana has lodged an FIR with the Police Station, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar, under Section 420 of the IPC, against the complainant, and the present case is the counter blast to the said FIR.
5. The applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, relief is granted to them, under Section 482 of BNSS.
6. When, put to notice, the Police filed status report, disclosing therein that on 18.3.2025, complainant Anil Chauhan, through e-mail, submitted to the Police the following facts:
“To Station House Officer Police Station, Sarahan, Pachhad, Sirmour, H.P.. Subject: Complaint against S/Shri Abhishek Rana, Mrs. Anita Rana, Kamlesh Kumar and others for committing offences of Criminal Trespass and Criminal Breach of Trust by conspiring criminally with each other. Sir undersigned has already sent a handwritten Complaint via registered post to your good self, and the present complaint be read in continuity with the said handwritten complaint and both be considered together while proceeding with the required legal actions. The undersigned was initially the sole proprietor and owner of M/S King Stone Mines and Minerals (hereinafter referred to as king stone) having its registered office at Alfresco The peak, Mashobra, Shimla. Thereafter. Sh Abhishek Rana and his mother Mrs. Anita Rana were drafted in as partners having 25% stake each respectively, as per the Partnership Deed made on 15th April 2021. Subsequently Sh. Abhishek Rana insisted that a JCB should be purchased so that the work at site could be carried out in an effective and efficient way. He stated that since MSME rebate can be availed only by a person below 45 years of age so the said JCB should be purchased in his name. However, the upfront amount and subsequent instalments were paid by the undersigned Thereafter, we entered into an agreement on 12th Aug, 2021, wherein the JCB was a property of King stone and to be used at site only. However, on 11th Dec. 2024 Sh. Abhishek Rana accompanied by Kamlesh Kumar and some other unknown persons came to the site and forcibly stole the parked JCB and took it to some unknown place without the undersigned's consent Sh. Abhishek Rana got the JCB purchased with an ulterior motive of cheating me by utilizing my money and subsequently steeling it. Sh. Abhishek Rana and Mrs. Anita Rana both should be booked under relevant sections of cheating and theft. Thanking You. SD/ Anil chauhan Dated: 18/03/2025 Anil Chuahan, son of Late Sh. SL Chauhan, Alfresco The Peek, Mashobra, Shimla, HP. 98194-99000.”
6.1. On the basis of above facts, the Police machinery swung into motion. In the status report, filed on 20.3.2025, it has been mentioned that investigation is at the initial stage and considering the said fact, interim protection was granted to the applicants, on 20.3.2025, and the matter was adjourned for 4.4.2025.
6.2 On that date, Police filed the status report, disclosing therein that during investigation, the complainant was directed to produce the relevant documents. Consequently, on 23.3.2025, complainant Anil Chauhan, in the presence of the witnesses, produced the relevant documents
The presumption of innocence must be upheld, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited, allowing bail under specified conditions.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Pre-trial custody is prohibited as punishment; bail may be granted if investigation is complete and no purpose is served by continued detention.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The court established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The court granted bail based on the completion of investigation, lack of evidence for custodial interrogation, and absence of convictions in previous cases.
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.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
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.