Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Shubham Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP (M) No. 173 of 2025
Decided On : 28-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Ms. Anubhuti Sharma.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Jasbeer Singh, I.O., Police Station West, Shimla, H.P.

The presumption of innocence must be upheld in bail applications, and vague police assertions are insufficient to deny bail.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 298, 324(4), 115(2), 351(2), 79, 118(1), 118(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant apprehending arrest in FIR for alleged involvement in a religious disturbance and land grabbing - Court grants interim bail with conditions, emphasizing presumption of innocence and the need for substantial grounds for custodial interrogation. (Paras 1, 6, 17, 20)

(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court may impose reasonable conditions to ensure the investigation is not hampered and to protect witnesses. (Paras 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant claims to be falsely implicated in a case involving a religious ceremony disrupted by alleged trespassers, leading to violence and property disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant's presumption of innocence must be upheld, and the vague assertions by the police do not justify denial of bail.

Issues: The main issues include the necessity of custodial interrogation and the applicant's potential to influence witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere assertions by the police are insufficient to deny bail; the applicant's rights must be protected until proven guilty.

Result: Interim bail granted, subject to conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Apprehending his arrest in FIR No. 206 of2024, dated 17^th November, 2024, registered under Sections 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 298, 324 (4), 115 (2), 351 (2), 79, 118 (1) and 118 (2) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., applicant-Shubham Kumar has filed the present bail application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for passing a direction, in his favour, directing the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station West, District Shimla, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-noted FIR.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police. He has termed the case of the police, as false and frivolous.

3. The applicant has alleged that the complainants, in the present case, are themselves the trespassers. In addition to this, the applicant has also given the history of the litigation, regarding the property in dispute.

4. As per the applicant, he is ready to abide by any condition(s), to be imposed by this Court, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS.

5. On the basis of the above facts, the applicant has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.

6. While issuing notice to the State, interim bail was granted to the applicant, vide order, dated 24^th January, 2025, with a direction to the Investigating Officer to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject tofurnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer/Investigating Officer.

7. On notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17^th November, 2024, complainants-Vishal Sharma, Mahender Kumar, Harish Kumar and Dharampal Thakur, Trustees of Brahmo Samaj, near AG Office, Shimla, moved a complaint, before the police, requesting therein to take action against Tanmahimananda, Ramrupananda, Lalit Verma, Sandeep Kumar, Karan Nanda, Nitin Vyas, Sheetal Vyas and Vinod Aggarwal.

7.1. According to them, a programme on the occasion of 133^rd Conference of Brahmo Samaj had been planned to be organized in Kali Bari Temple Hall on 15^th and 16^th November, 2024 and members from all over India had come to attend the same.

7.2. It has been mentioned in the complaint that on 16^th November, 2024, at about 5.00 pm, the followers of Brahmo Samaj had gone to Temple premises to offer prayers. The said programme continued peacefully from 05.00 – 06.00 pm, and religious ceremonies were also performed. After some time, Sant Tanmahimanand and Ramrupanand entered the premises and started misbehaving with the ladies, who were performing pooja there. Due to their act, the religious feelings have been hurt.

7.3. It has been averred by the complainants that despite requests made by the complainants, Tanmahimanand had not permitted them to establish kalash. Thereafter, when the followers of Brahmo Samaj were peacefully performing their prayers, Swami Tanmahimanand, alongwith his goons, had assembled in the Temple premises. Police was also called there and in the presence of police and administration, Swami Tanmahimanand and Ramrupanand, Lalit Verma, Sandeep, Karan Nanda and Vinod Aggarwal had caused disturbance in the prayers of the followers of Brahmo Samaj.

7.4. According to the complainants, Advocate Sheetal Vyas and her husband Nitin Vyas had also instigated the followers of ABVP, BJP and Bajrang Dal. With the intention to kill the complainants, stones are also stated to have been pelted upon them and they were also attacked with flower pots and sticks. Due to this, ten devotees suffered injuries. Not only this, those persons had also attacked the police, due to which, they had also suffered injuries. In the said process, damage is also stated to have bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document