Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dhimanshu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
1
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P.(M) No.1670 of 2025
Reserved on: 07.08.2025
.
Decided on: 13.08.2025
Dhimanshu ....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.77 of 2023, dated 11.7.2023,
registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 302,
323, 504, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution,
Hassan Khan told Dikshant and Lalit alias Suraj that a boy
working in Pinky Dhaba was abusing them. Hassan Khan called
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
2
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
the boy. The boy abused Hassan Khan and asked him to visit the
Kumarhatti Flyover. Dikshant, Hassan and Lalit went to the spot
where they found 7-8 boys standing with rods in their hands.
.
They gave beatings to the informant party. These allegations
are false. No test identification parade was conducted. The
petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2023. One witness out of 27
witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner is the only
earning member of the family. He would abide by the terms and
conditions which the Court may impose. The main accused has
been enlarged on bail by this Court in CrMP(M) No. 878 of 2005
vide judgment dated 7.7.2025, and the petitioner is entitled to
bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, it was prayed that the
present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on
bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant told the police that he and Lalit
alias Suraj were consuming liquor and food on 11.7.2023 at 12.30
AM. Hasan Khan came to the room and told them that a boy
working in the Pinky Dhaba was abusing them. Hassan Khan
called that person. The informant and Lalit alias Suraj also
talked to him. He abused them and called them near the
Kumarhatti Flyover. The informant, Hasan Khan and Lalit went
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
3
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
to Kumarhatti flyover, where 7-8 persons armed with iron rods
were present. They stopped the motorcycle and started beating
the informant party. The informant party sustained injuries.
.
They were taken to the hospital. Hasan and the informant were
sent to a higher institution for further treatment. The police
arrested the petitioner and other persons. They recovered iron
rods and sticks, which were used for the commission of the
offence. The police seized the weapons of offence. Lalit alias
Suraj succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. An orange
angle iron was recovered, which had blood stains on it. The
orange colour was also found on the motorcycle of the deceased
Lalit alias Suraj. The sample of paint was obtained, and it was
sent to FSL along with the angle iron. As per the report of
analysis, the blood was found on the angle iron, which was
insufficient for serological examination. The orange colour of
the angle iron and the sample was found to be similar. The
police filed a charge sheet. One witness has been examined out
of 27 witnesses cited by the prosecution. One witness had died.
25 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed
for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses at Sr.
Nos 1, 5 and 6 on 02.09.2025; hence, the status report.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
4
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
4. I have heard Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
.
5. Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
falsely implicated. No test identification parade was conducted,
and the involvement of the petitioner has not been established.
This Court has already released co-accused Hemant Kumar on
bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial. The
petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. He prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be
released on bail.
6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is
involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The role of the
petitioner and co-accused was not similar, and the principle of
parity does not apply to the present case. Therefore, 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.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
5
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
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, themanner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, the role
attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents ofthe accused, the probability of tampering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused arereleased on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts ofjustice 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: 2004SCC (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. AshisChatterjee [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] .]::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
6
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
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 directlyrelated to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered
to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” forthe 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 accused and ensure that the liberty ofthe accused 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 thisCourt. 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 theneed to facilitate the administration of justice,
secure the presence of the accused 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::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
7
( 2025:HHC:27398 )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 permissible inthe 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 donot 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 intoconsideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions
of this Court that criminal proceedings are notfor the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to
a court to grant or refuse the prayer for
anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the particular case. Thefactors 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 thenature 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 possibility 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::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
8
( 2025:HHC:27398 )bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a
recovery agent to realise the dues of the
complainant, 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 copy of the judgment passed by this
Court in Hemant Kumar versus State of H.P., 2025:HHC:21396
shows that the co-accused was released on bail because the
Court found that only one witness was examined within one and
a half years, and the learned Public Prosecutor had requested to
call PWs at Sr. No. 1 to 4. The prosecution has to examine 25
witnesses, and the Court found that the trial is not likely to
conclude soon. Similar parameters will apply to the present
petitioner. The petitioner is facing the same trial. The same set
of witnesses is to be examined against him, and once the Court
has held in respect of one accused that there is a delay in the
progress of the trial, it cannot be said that there is no delay in
the progress of the trial qua the petitioner. Hence, the
submission that the role of the petitioner and the co-accused
has to be seen to claim parity cannot be accepted.
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
9
( 2025:HHC:27398 )
13. The role would have been material had the bail been
sought on the ground that no prima-facie case was made out;
however, the bail was not granted on this ground, but because
.
the right to a speedy trial of the accused was being belatedly
denied by the prosecution.
14. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the
principle of parity. Hence, the present petition is allowed, and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: –
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor
will he influence any evidence in any manner
whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every
hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a
continuous period of seven days without furnishingthe address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned,
the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to
the Court; and
(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and
social media contact to the Police and the Court and
will abide by the summons/notices received from the
Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media
Account. In case of any change in the mobile number
or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS
10
( 2025:HHC:27398 )the Police/Court within five days from the date of the
change.
15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
.
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to
file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail,
Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by
FASTER. r
17. The observations made herein-above are regarding
the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
13 August 2025.
(yogesh)
::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:32:39 :::CIS