Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Durgesh Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) Nos.764 & 765 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Ms. Kiran Negi
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. Anish Banshtu
The grant of bail is the general rule, and detention is an exception. When an investigation is substantially complete and the main accused in a joint criminal act has already been granted bail, the court will not deny bail to alleged accomplices solely to facilitate the recovery of stolen goods.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 305, 3(5), and 61(2) - Grant of bail - Principles of judicial discretion - Presumption of innocence - Considerations for bail include nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and character of accused. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Bail - Interim bail made absolute - Co-accused granted bail - Investigation substantially complete - No justification for denial of bail to accomplices solely on the ground of recovery of stolen articles. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were involved in a theft incident at a jewellery shop. While the co-accused who performed the direct act of theft was granted regular bail by the Magistrate, the present petitioners sought to make their interim bail absolute. The State opposed, citing non-recovery of stolen articles.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the main accused was already enlarged on bail and investigations were nearly complete, there was no justification to deny bail to the petitioners. Freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and should not be curtailed pending trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to absolute bail despite the non-recovery of stolen articles, and whether their detention is justified pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. In the absence of a necessity to secure the attendance of the accused to stand trial, detention pending investigation is unnecessary, especially when the main accused is already on bail.
Result: Bail petitions allowed and interim orders made absolute.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
1. Sequel to orders dated 06.05.2026, whereby this Court enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim bail in case FIR No.36/2025, dated 05.06.2025, under Sections 305, 3(5), 61(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, HP, respotndent/State has filed status report and HC Pankaj has come present with record. Record perused and returned.
2. Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that on 05.06.2025, Sh. Jagdish Soni, proprietor Jagdama Jhewellers, Reckong Peo lodged a complaint at Police Station gReckong Peo, alleging therein that on 04.06.2025, two customers had come to his shop for purchasing jewellery. He alleged that while closing the shop in the evening, they found that golden chain and locket weighing 25 grams were missing. He alleged that after having checked the CCTV footage, it transpired that at about 10.26 a.m., two women, who had come to the shop to buy jewellery, had stolen one chain and locket. In the afore background, FIR detailed hereinabove came to be lodged against the unknown person. However, during investigation, it transpired that two women, namely Durgesh Devi and Sarvesh along with one male, namely Brijesh, had come to the jewellery shop, as detailed hereinabove, with an intetnt to commit theft. Brijesh had brought aforesaid two women in his car and thereafter, waited outside the shop and as soon as theft was committed by the two women named hereinabove, all of them fled from the spot in the car being driven by Brijesh. One of the ahccused namely Sarvesh, who had actually stolen the chain and locket, was arrested and thereafter, released on bail by ithe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reckong Peo. However, the bail-petitioners, who had not themselves committed the theft, but were allegedly parties to the incident, approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of interim bail.
3. Vide order dated 06.05.2026, this Court, enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim bail subject to condition that they shall join investigation. Ms. Pooja Thakur, learned vice counsel for the petitioners, states that pursuant to order dated 06.05.2026, both the above named bail-petitioners have already joined investigation and at present, nothing remains to be recovered from them, as such, they deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by the petitioners, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that though petitioners have joined investigation, but till date, they have not got the recovery of stolen articles effected, as such, prayer made on their behalf to make order dated 06.05.2026 absolute may not be accepted. Mr. Kahol further submitted that bail-petitioners are very clever and habitual offenders and in the event of their being enlarged on bail, they may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in these activities.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, two women namely, Sarvesh and Durgesh Devi, had entered the Jagdama Jewellery shop, situate at Reckong Peo and thereafter, while owner/salesman of the shop was showing the different articles, co-accused Sarvesh picked up the gold ornaments and kept the same in her fist. Both the above named persons thereafter sat in a car, which was waiting outside and was being driven by the bail-petitioner Brijesh. Co-accused Sarvesh, who had actually picked up the gold ornaments from the jewellery box, already stands enlarged on bail pursuant to order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reckong Peo, whereas bail-petitioners are on interim bail vide order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court.
6. Though investigation is almost complete as has been fairly stated by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, but since recovery of stolen articles is yet to be effected, prayer made on behalf
