Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
( 2025:HHC:6126 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 2296 of 2024
Reserved on: 10.03.2025
Announced on: 13.03.2025
____________________________________________________________
Rishabh Seghal …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy -State Advocate General Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Bail petitioner [Rishab Seghal], being in custody
since 11.02.2024 has come up before this Court,
seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure hereinafter Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS) originating from
the FIR No. 11 of 2024 dated 10.02.2024, registered at
Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan [H.P.], under Section
21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2- ( 2025:HHC:6126 ) Act (referred to as the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Mr. Anriudh Sharma, Learned
Advocate, is that on 10.02.2024, two boys namely
Rishabh Seghal and Anish Sonker were allegedly found
to have been carrying contraband with intent to
indulge in business of selling of Chitta/herion, near
Shivalik Hotel, Parwanoo. The police intercepted aforesaid
two boys and recovery of Chitta/heroin was made
from aforesaid persons. Consequently, an FIR No.11
of 2024, dated 10.02.2024 was registered against these
two boys by the police.
2(i). Bail petitioner has moved the Bail application(s)
which were rejected on 27.05.2024, [Annexure P-1]
and the second application was withdrawn on 12.07.2024
[Annexure P-2] and the third one was decided on 23.08.2024,
[Annexure P-3].
2(ii). Case of the petitioner-accused is that,
he has been falsely implicated. It is averred that there
is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the
accusation and he has been wrongly and falsely
-3- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
implicated with alleged contraband. Bail petitioner
has furnished an undertaking that he abide by all the
terms and conditions as will be imposed by this Court.
Bail petitioner has averred that he shall not cause
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
or persons acquainted with the facts of the case
and shall not flee away from investigation and trial.
It is averred that personal liberty of petitioner
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could
neither be curtailed or taken away by way of
penalty by prolonging the detention by presuming
the guilt against the petitioner. Instant bail petition
has been filed by bail petitioner, through his mother with
the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on
25.11.2024, respondent-State Authorities filed the Status
Report dated 23.12.2024 and another Status Report on
21.02.2025, when the matter was heard and judgement was
reserved. However, it transpired that certain points needed
clarification from the Learned State Counsel. Accordingly, it
-4- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
was reheard and was reheard with the consent of parties and
was reserved on 1.3.2025.
3(i). Perusal of Status Report reveals that on
the basis of secret information dated 10.02.2024 the
petitioner Rishab Seghal and co-accused Anish were
intercepted by police at 3.55 P.M near Shivalik Hotel
Parwanoo. Thereafter at about 4.30 P.M an independent
witness, namely, Lakhwinder Singh, Ward Member was
associated. Thereafter at about 5.20 P.M personal
search of both the accused was conducted in the presence
of Gazetted Officer/SDPO, Pranav Chauhan, leading to
recovery of Heroin/Chitta weighing 39.70 grams from the
petitioner and contraband i.e. Heroin/Chitta weighing
9.33 grams from co-accused Anish Sonker. After completing
the codal formalities, the bail petitioner was arrested
on 11.02.2024. During interrogation the bail petitioner
Rishabh and co-accused Anish disclosed that they had
conspired with one Nigerian, namely [TIDJ MAMANE],
who was living in Delhi and they had been in contact
with aforesaid Nigerian [TIDJ MAMANE] for the last about
three years. Status Report reveals that aforesaid two persons
-5- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
[Rishabh Seghal and Anish Sonker] were deployed by
Devinder @ Chinda to Delhi, to meet the Nigerian at Delhi
and for bringing the alleged contraband and for
sale/purchase. In above background, State Authorities have
prayed for the rejection of bail application.
4. Heard, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Learned Counsel for
petitioner and Ms. Pryanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General for Respondent(s).
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL:
5. Broad parameters have been mandated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the
cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay
versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P.
Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement,
(2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT
Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani
-6- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
(2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus
Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail
is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous or
groundless and incase neither any prima facie case
nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point
towards the accusation. However, depending upon the
facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case,
the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and
if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment
including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away
from investigation and trial and the character, past
antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing
of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated;
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced
and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail
etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of
bail.
5(i). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus
-7- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023
held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a
Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but
by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in
the light of broad-parameters referred to above.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:
6. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances and the material on record as
is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court is of
the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Rishabh
Seghal], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the following
reasons:-
NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL
PETITIONER:
6(i). Status Report(s) indicate that H.C. Shubham
received information on 10.02.2024 at about 3.30 p.m
that bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and co-accused
Anish Sonker were coming from Kali Mandir Kalka
towards Parwanoo on foot and were carrying
contraband. Based on the information received, the
police party headed by H.C Shubham, stopped the
-8- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
bail petitioner and the co-accused near Shivalik
Hotel, Parwanoo at about 3.55 p.m on 10.02.2024.
Status report further indicates that at about 4.20 P.M
the police party associated Lakhwinder Singh a Ward
Member as an Independent Witness. Status Report
indicates that before carrying out the necessary
search, the Gazetted Officer-SDPO, Pranav Chauhan,
reached the spot at about 5.20 P.M on 10.02.2024;
whereafter, the search was conducted and contraband
weighing 39.70 grams of Heroin/Chitta was taken
into possession from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal]
and contraband weighing 9.33 gram of Heroin/
Chitta was recovered from co-accused [Anish Sonker].
After completing codal formalities Rukka was sent to
concerned Police Station, leading to registration of the
F.I.R. Status Report(s) indicates that the recovered
contraband, in cloth parcel(s) marked A-I, which was
allegedly recovered from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal]
and another cloth parcel marked A-II allegedly recovered
from co-accused [Anish Sonker], were sent for chemical
-9- ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for
analysis and as per FSL Report dated 4.2.2024, the
recovered contraband in both parcels i.e. A-I and
A-II were homogenized revealing presence of
Diacetylmorphine. The accusation regarding [possession
of alleged contraband intended sale-purchase or
transportation, etc.] under Section 21 of the NDPS Act is
a matter to be tested, examined and proved during the
trial.
6(ii). Likewise, the accusation under Section 29
of NDPS Act alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy
is a matter which is to be tested, examined and proved
on by way of evidence during the trial. The continued
detention alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy
without there being any cogent material on record,
certainly amount to incarcerating the petitioner by
way punishment, is impermissible; and in these
circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit.
6(iii). Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that
once bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and co-accused
– 10 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
[Anish Sonker] were apprehended by police leading
to alleged recovery of contraband weighing 39.70 gm.
of Heroin/Chitta, as in cloth parcel, i.e. Mark A-I
from the petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and another
recovery of alleged contraband weighing 9.33 gm of
Chitta as in cloth parcel Mark A-II from co-accused
[Anish Sonker], then, the Learned Counsel for petitioner
states that as per FSL Report dated 04.02.2024, the
recovered contraband A-I and A-II were illegally
homogenized. Faced with this situation, Learned State
Counsel is also unable to give any satisfactory
explanation and has not placed on record anything to
show as to why and under what circumstances two
different recoveries, affected from two different accused
were homogenized by the FSL, as reflected in the Status
Report. In these circumstances, the prosecution story
and the prima facie accusation, at this stage, appears to
be doubtful and not worthy of credence.
6(iv). Perusal of Status Report indicate that the
contraband weighing 39.70 gm. of Heroin-Chitta was
– 11 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
allegedly recovered from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal]
and contraband weighing 9.33 gm. of Chitta was
recovered from co-accused [Anish Sonker] by the Police
on 10.02.2024. Admittedly, the alleged contraband
falls within the ambit of Intermediate Quantity in
instant case and therefore, the rigors of Section 37
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 are not applicable in the instant case.
INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
7. While reiterating the principle that bail is
a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can
be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation
and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the
eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined
the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan
Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1242, in the following terms:-
“11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
while hearing a bail Application in a case
of an alleged economic offence, this court
held that the object of bail is neither
– 12 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
punitive nor preventative. It was observed
as under:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to
secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that
an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of
the fact that any imprisonment
before conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse
bail as a mark of disapproval
of former conduct whether the
accused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to
an unconvicted person for the
purpose of giving him a taste
of imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of Cr PC confer
discretionary jurisdiction on criminal
courts to grant bail to the accused
pending trial or in appeal against
convictions; since the jurisdiction
is discretionary, it has to be
exercised with great care and
caution by balancing the valuable
– 13 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
right of liberty of an individual
and the interest of the society
in general. In our view, the reasoning
adopted by the learned District
Judge, which is affirmed by the
High Court, in our opinion, is a
denial of the whole basis of our
system of law and normal rule
of bail system. It transcends
respect for the requirement that
a man shall be considered
innocent until he is found guilty.
If such power is recognised, then
it may lead to chaotic situation
and would jeopardise the personal
liberty of an individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has
stated that bail is the rule and
committal to jail an exception. It
has also observed that refusal
of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution.”
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000)
2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a
bail application held that conditions for
grant of bail cannot become so onerous
that their existence itself is tantamount
to refusal of bail. This Court held as
under:
“We are unable to appreciate even the
first order passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate imposing the onerous
condition that an accused at the FIR
stage should pay a huge sum of Rs.
2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had
paid it is a different matter. But the
fact that he was not able to pay
that amount and in default thereof
– 14 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
he is to languish in jail for more
than 10 months now, is sufficient
indication that he was unable to make
up the amount. Can he be detained
in custody endlessly for his inability
to pay the amount in the range of
Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by
his surety were dishonoured, the Court
could perhaps have taken it as a
ground to suggest to the payee of
the cheques to resort to the legal
remedies provided by law.
Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied
with the conduct of the surety as for
his failure to raise funds for honouring
the cheques issued by him, the Court
could have directed the appellant to
substitute him with another surety.
But to keep him in prison for such
a long period, that too in a case
where bail would normally be granted
for the offences alleged, is not only
hard but improper. It must be
remembered that the Court has not
even come to the conclusion that the
allegations made in the FIR are true.
That can be decided only when the
trial concludes, if the case is charge-
sheeted by the police.”
REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL:
8. While dealing with the concept of bail and the
right of an accused for speedy trial and deprivation
thereof curtails the personal liberty of an accused under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024,
– 15 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of
Maharashtra and Another, as under:-
“18 Criminals are not born out but made. The
human potential in everyone is good and so,
never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is
often missed when dealing with
delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed,
every saint has a past and every sinner a
future. When a crime is committed, a
variety of factors is responsible for making
the offender commit the crime. Those
factors may be social and economic, may be,
the result of value erosion or parental
neglect; may be, because of the stress
of circumstances, or the manifestation of
temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted
with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have
a speedy trial as enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution then the State
or any other prosecuting agency should
not oppose the plea for bail on the ground
that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner
is still an accused; not a convict. The over-
arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence
that an accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent
the penal law may be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which
the prosecuting agency as well as the Court
have proceeded, the right of the accused
– 16 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
to have a speedy trial could be said to
have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds
and is hereby allowed. The impugned
order passed by the High Court is set
aside.”
BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY:
ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
9. While dealing with a matter relating to
prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial
and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and while
deprecating that the bail is not to be withheld as
punishment so as to operate de hors the principle
that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate
of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024,
decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under :-
“49. We find that, on account of a long
period of incarceration running for around
17 months and the trial even not having
been commenced, the appellant has been
deprived of his right to speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to
speedy trial and the right to liberty are
sacrosanct rights. On denial of these
rights, the trial court as well as the High
Court ought to have given due weightage
to this factor.
– 17 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
52. The Court also reproduced the observations
made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra),
which read thus:
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may
remind the trial courts and the High
Courts of what came to be observed
by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We
quote:
“What is often forgotten, and therefore
warrants reminder, is the object to
keep a person in judicial custody
pending trial or disposal of an
appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R
v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
“I observe that in this case bail
was refused for the prisoner. It
cannot be too strongly impressed
on the, magistracy of the country
that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely
to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial””
53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our
experience, we can say that it appears that
the trial courts and the High Courts attempt
to play safe in matters of grant of bail.
The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed
in breach. On account of non-grant of
bail even in straight forward open and
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding
to the huge pendency. It is high time
that the trial courts and the High
Courts should recognize the principle that
“bail is rule and jail is exception”.
55. As observed by this Court in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective
to keep a person in judicial custody
pending trial or disposal of an appeal
– 18 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
is to secure the attendance of the prisoner
at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having
deep roots in the society. There is no
possibility of him fleeing away from the
country and not being available for facing
the trial. In any case, conditions can be
imposed to address the concern of the
State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the
learned ASG regarding the possibility of
tampering the evidence is concerned, it is
to be noted that the case largely
depends on documentary evidence which
is already seized by the prosecution. As
such, there is no possibility of tampering
with the evidence. Insofar as the concern
with regard to influencing the witnesses
is concerned, the said concern can be
addressed by imposing stringent conditions
upon the appellant.”
10. While adjudicating the claim for bail, even
under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS
Act], the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No._____of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla
Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and
connected matter has mandated that fundamental
right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is superior to the statutory
restrictions, in the following terms:-
– 19 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
“13. We had also reiterated the well-established
principle that “bail is the rule and refusal
is an exception”. We had further observed
that the fundamental right of liberty
provided under Article 21 of the Constitution
is superior to the statutory restrictions.”
PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT
OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
11. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite
statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024
(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled
as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of
Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC
Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating
the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India to be of paramount importance
and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to
make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated
by granting bail, in the following terms:-
“13. We have considered the rival submissions
and carefully examined the material on
record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating
that this Court, through a catena of
decisions, has consistently emphasized that
prolonged incarceration of an accused
– 20 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their
right to personal liberty. Even statutory
embargoes on the grant of bail must
yield when weighed against the
paramount importance of the right to life
and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution, particularly in cases where
such incarceration extends over an
unreasonably long period without
conclusion of trial.
17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the
settled principles that a suspect cannot be
held in custody indefinitely and that
undertrial incarceration should not
amount to punitive detention. The Court
would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or
influential accused do not obstruct the
ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence,
or influence witnesses, namely, actions that
undermine the fundamental doctrine of
a fair trial.
18. Striking a balance between these
considerations and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the allegations,
we deem it appropriate to dispose of this
appeal with the following directions:
f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be
released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject
to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court; ……”
Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts
of this case, shall certainly amount to depriving and
curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on
mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are
yet to be tested, examined and proved during the
– 21 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither
be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the
petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial
of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail
is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State
Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and
still considerable time is likely to be taken for
conclusion of trial. Therefore, in view of the mandate
of law the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight.
PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
12. Status Report(s) indicate that the bail
petitioner has no criminal antecedents. In these
circumstances, the prolongation of detention when there
is nothing adverse regarding the past criminal
antecedents also supports the case of bail petitioner for
enlargement of bail.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING
WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:
13. Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out cogent and convincing
material revealing adversarial circumstances that
– 22 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper
with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or
promise to any person or persons acquainted with
the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if
any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded,
by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING
OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE :
14. Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances
nor placed on record any cogent and convincing
material on record to infer that after release on
bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause
of justice in any manner. In absence of any material,
the plea for bail deserves to be granted to the
petitioner in the instant case.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING
AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:
15. In order to safeguard the rights of bail
petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State
that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding
– 23 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed
out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this
case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail
orders, in later part of this order.
CONCLUSION:
16. In the facts of instant case, the plea of
petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that
firstly, prima facie prosecution story appears to be
highly doubtful and improbable at this stage as
discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report
reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since
11.02.2024 and is undergoing incarceration for about
one year and one month; and thirdly, conclusion of
trial is likely to take considerable time when
out of total 30 PWs none has been examined
as yet; and fourthly, the delay in trial is not
attributable to the petitioner ; and fifthly, an accused
is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty ; and
sixthly, the continued detention can neither be
punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued
– 24 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by
presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even
the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and
convincing material that after release on bail there
is possibility of accused fleeing away from the
trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses
or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the
State Authorities have not placed anything on record
to show that petitioner has misused liberty granted
to him earlier; and tenthly, the petitioner has no past
criminal antecedents and the accusation is yet to be
tested, examined and proved during the trial; and
lastly, in order to safeguard the interest of State vis-à-vis
the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent
condition in this order and in case of any violation of or
misuse of the concession-liberty, the State Authority can
seek cancellation of the concession extended to the
petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the
sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty
and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the
– 25 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage.
On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate
of law, referred to above, the claim of the petitioner
[Rishabh Seghal] for enlargement on bail carries weight,
in the peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed
above.
DIRECTIONS:
17. Taking into account the entirety of the
facts and the material on record and the mandate
of law and the reasons recorded hereinabove, and in
the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is
allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to
release the petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] on bail, subject to
the observance of following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release
bail petitioner [Rishab Seghal] on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy
Five Thousand} with two sureties on
furnishing similar bond amount each, to
the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court
concerned;
(ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also
appear on every date of trial hereinafter;
– 26 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
(iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other
condition(s), which may be imposed by
the Learned Trial Court, in view of this
order;
(iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor
shall abet the commission of any offence
hereinafter. Involvement in any offence
whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail
automatic cancellation of bail granted in
terms of this order ;
(v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional
E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of
his surety to the Learned Trial Court;
(vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the
Investigating Officer or SHO of Police
Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every
month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an
update on good conduct and behaviour;
(vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and
also shall not leave the country without
the prior information of the Court;
(viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence
in any manner;
(ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement,
threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to
witnesses of any other person acquainted with
the case;
(x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of
any condition contained hereinabove, if
need arises;
(xi) State Authorities are free to move this
Court for seeking alteration/modification of
any of the condition contained in this
order or any condition imposed by the
– 27 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this
order, in fact situation of instant case
or circumstances so necessitate, at any
time herein-after;
(xii) State Authorities are free to move this
Court for seeking cancellation of the
concession of bail, in case, the petitioner
violates any of the conditions contained
in this order.;
18. Observations made in this judgment shall
not be construed in any manner as an indictive of
findings, for or against the parties herein, either for
the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall
proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of
the observations contained hereinabove.
19. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy
of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities
concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for
production of a certified copy, but if required, may
verify about the passing of this order from the Website
of this Court.
– 28 – ( 2025:HHC:6126 )
20. Registry is directed to forward a copy of
this order to Superintendent of Police, Panchkula,
Haryana, for information and with a direction to intimate
the SHO, Police Station, Panchkula to keep an update on
good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner
[Rishabh Seghal] in terms of this order.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
13th March, 2025
(tm)
