Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 18.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MPM No. 1704 of 2025
Reserved on: 18.07.2025
.
Date of Decision: 22.07.2025
Akshay alias Akshu .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram
r to
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
…Respondent
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajinder Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent- : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional
State Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking
for regular bail in F.I.R. No. 22 of 2025, dated 28.01.2025,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 305, 331(3) and 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023 at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.
_________________________
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:23621
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
informant Munish Mahajan reported the matter to the police
.
that the counter of his Karyana shop at Chowgan, Chamba, was
opened and ₹30,000/- were stolen. He checked the CCTV
footage and found one person holding a bag on his head
committing the theft in the shop. The police investigated the
matter and concluded, after verifying CCTV footage, that the
falsely implicated.
petitioner had committed theft. The police arrested the
petitioner on 11.02.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was
The investigation is complete, and the
charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner
would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that
he had closed his shop on 26.01.2025 at 2:30 p.m. When he
returned to his shop at 5:30 p.m., he found that the cash box was
open and ₹30,000/-had been stolen from it. The informant
checked the CCTV footage and found that one person was
carrying a bag on his head, who had committed the theft. The
police registered the F.I.R. and conducted an investigation. The
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:23621
police checked the CCTV footage and found that the petitioner
had committed the theft. As per the status report, 11 F.I.Rs have
.
been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would
indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his
release on bail. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Ajinder Mehta, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
5. Mr.
r Ajinder to
Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
Mehta, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was
falsely implicated in the case. There is insufficient material to
connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The police
have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner
would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed
and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, submitted that 11 F.I.R.s have already been registered
against the petitioner, and some of them pertain to the theft.
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:23621
The petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence in the event
of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition
.
be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC
768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page
783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, thegravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability oftampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, thepossibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of
U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:23621Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State.
(NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as
under:-
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly
related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empoweredto exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for
the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a)
CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by theneed to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the
presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of theaccused is not misused to impede the investigation,
overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:23621accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not
misused to impede the investigation, overawe the
witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several
decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the.
conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in
the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis
supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the
Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
observed in the following terms: —
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power
on a court of law to impose any condition that it
chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as
a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissiblein the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense,
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of
the view that the present facts and circumstances of
the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to
be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application andobserved:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court togrant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:23621possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and.
larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as
a recovery agent to realise the dues of thecomplainant, and that too, without any trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. A perusal of the status report shows that the
petitioner was seen in the CCTV footage while committing the
theft. The police also recorded the statements of witnesses and
concluded that the petitioner had committed theft. Therefore,
there is sufficient material to conclude, prima facie, that the
petitioner is involved in the commission of theft.
13. The status report shows that eleven F.I.Rs were
registered against the petitioner, out of which six F.I.Rs pertain
to the commission of theft and the other relate to the
commission of offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act‘). The
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:23621
status report clearly shows that the petitioner has criminal
antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of
.
criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC:
6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge
must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the
nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the
bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an
accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood
of the commission of the crime.
14. It was held in Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of
Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103, that the criminal antecedents
are relevant to determine the propensity to commit the crime.
It was observed:
31. Moreover, the Appellant’s criminal antecedents,
though not involving prior accusations under the NDPSAct, include multiple DRI and customs proceedings
involving smuggling of cigarettes, undervaluation of
imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences.
These antecedents are relevant only for the limited
purpose of evaluating the Appellant’s propensity to
interfere with the process of justice if enlarged on bail.
15. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement
Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:23621
can become a threat to society because of his criminal
antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed:
.
“27…..An exception will also be in a case where,
considering the antecedents of the accused, there is
every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to
society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issueprerogative writs is always discretionary.”
16. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v.
Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons
were involved in the commission of similar offences, they
should not be released on bail. It was observed: –
“20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are
concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half
years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are
shown to have been involved in previous cases. There areabout 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the charge sheet
against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6,
who are shown to have been involved in two cases.
Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences
and considering their criminal antecedents, in ouropinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view,
more particularly when there was sufficient material to
show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offencesunder the UAPA.
17. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner
would disentitle him from the concession of bail, especially
when the F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner relates to the
commission of a similar offence, which shows that the
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:23621
possibility of the petitioner committing a similar offence cannot
be ruled out.
.
18. It was submitted that the offence alleged against the
petitioner is not so serious as to justify his pre-trial detention.
This submission cannot be accepted. The Court would not have
normally declined bail to a person who is accused of committing
the theft; however, in the present case, the status report shows
that many F.I.R.s have been registered against the petitioner for
the commission of theft. Therefore, criminal antecedents of the
petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, and
the nature of the offence would become insignificant in the
present situation.
19. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and
the same is dismissed.
20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding
the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
22nd July, 2025
(ravinder)
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:24 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link