Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Kaif vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 261 of 2025 with
Cr.MP(M) Nos. 262 and 300 of 2025
Date of decision: 12th March, 2025
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 261 of 2025
Mohammad Kaif ...Petitioner.
(Lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan)
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 262 of 2025
Mohammad Rihan ...Petitioner.
(Lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan)
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 300 of 2025
Mohammad Farhan ...Petitioner.
(Lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan)
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner. Mr.Ashok K. Tyagi and Mr.Owais Khan
Pathan, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in
Cr.MP(M) Nos. 261 and 262 of 2025.
Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate for
petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 300 of 2025.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
General.
ASI Shamim Akhtar, Police Station
Parwanoo,District Solan.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR, hence
these are consolidated in order to avoid repetition and are being decided
together as common question of law and facts are involved in these
cases.
2 Petitioners, herein, are in judicial lock-up in case FIR No.7
of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 302, 147, 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (‘IPC‘ for short), registered in Police Station Parwanoo,
District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. They have approached this Court,
under Section 483 of the Bhartya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short ‘BNSS’), seeking regular bail in the matter.
3. In status report, filed on behalf of respondent-State,
statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh has been reiterated, on the
basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioners and other co-
accused.
4. According to status report, on 21.1.2020, an information
was received from ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, in Police Station Parwanoo
that a person injured in a quarrel has been brought to the hospital for
treatment, whereupon HC Vinod Kumar alongwith others had rushed to
3
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
the hospital, where statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh was
recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated that on that
day, i.e. 20.12.2020, at about 11 p.m., when he was sitting in his vehicle
at Sector-6 Parwanoo, near Negi Petrol Pump, he had received a call on
his mobile phone from Raju, who was friend of crane owner Pushap
Behl, requesting him to accompany Madan Lal in the crane, loaded with
a vehicle, upto Delhi. Complainant had agreed for that and had come
near the crane whereon vehicle of Delhi bearing registration No.DL-6CM-
4200 was loaded and crane driver Madan Lal was standing near the
crane and a white coloured taxi and 5-6 young men standing around the
taxi, were also there and the taxi driver was demanding fare, which was
paid by one of those young men. Thereafter, the taxi driver left the place.
Immediately thereafter, the man, who had paid the fare to the taxi driver,
had started asking Madan Lal to drop them at Delhi immediately at that
time, whereupon complainant had enquired Madan Lal about the status
of fuel in the crane and Madan Lal had replied that fuel tank was to be
filled. Thereafter, complainant, Madan Lal and a young man of Delhi
vehicle boarded the crane and other persons sat in the vehicle loaded on
the crane and crane was taken to Negi Petrol Pump and fuelled for
₹2000/- paid by the occupants of Delhi vehicle and then they started
towards TTR to proceed to Delhi, but suddenly it started raining heavily
4
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
and upon this complainant Rajan Kumar Singh had parked the crane at a
distance of 35-40 metres from the Petrol Pump on the right side of the
road. On asking by young man, sitting in the crane, for reason to stop,
Madan Lal had told that neither the wipers nor one of the head lights of
the crane were working and there was some defect in the crane. It was
further told by the deceased that he will take them to Delhi next morning
but the young men did not accept that and had started scuffling and
arguing with deceased Madan Lal in the crane itself, whereupon Madan
Lal had telephonically informed owner of crane Pushap Behl that there
was a defect in the crane and that the occupants of the car had been
forcing him to move for Delhi and arguing and beating him, whereupon
the crane owner had asked Madan Lal to lock the crane and to sleep in
any other vehicle with further assurance that he had been coming on the
spot, whereupon complainant Rajan Kumar Singh and Madan Lal got
down from the crane and the persons from the Delhi Vehicle had also
deboarded the crane and car and started beating Madan Lal by saying
that in case he did not move for Delhi at once then they would throw him
from the road in gorge, whereas Madan Lal had asked them to talk with
owner of the crane who was coming there. Upon this, petitioners picked
up Madan Lal and threw him in the gorge and had tried to overpower
complainant also by saying that he was also to be thrown in the gorge,
5
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
whereupon complainant ran towards the Petrol Pump and had narrated
the incident to persons deputed there and simultaneously he had also
informed crane owner Pushap Behl about the incident. Thereafter, crane
owner had arrived at the Petrol Pump in his own vehicle, accompanied
by Tanuj Behl and Pankaj Kumar, and complainant had also joined him
and when they reached on the spot, petitioners had already left the
place. Thereafter, complainant Rajan Kumar Singh, Tarun Behl, Pankaj
Kumar and crane owner Pushap Behl had gone to the gorge in search of
Madan Lal where Madan Lal was found lying injured, from where Madan
Lal was taken to ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, whereupon information was
sent to Police Station Parwanoo, which led to recording of statement of
complainant Rajan Kumar Singh, under Section 154 Cr.P.C, on the basis
of which FIR No.7 of 2020, dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 307, 147 &
149 IPC was registered.
5. Injured Madan Lal (now deceased) was referred for
treatment from ESI Hospital Parwanoo to PGI Chandigarh, where he was
declared brought dead and after his death case under Section 307 IPC
was converted into Section 302 IPC.
6. Petitioners were arrested by the police party on 23.1.2020
from Delhi and they were identified along with other co-accused by
6
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
complainant Rajan Kumar Singh in Identification Parade conducted in
District Jail Solan, in presence of Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar.
7. It is case of prosecution that one of the co-accused had also
called the police, threatening to kill deceased Madan Lal by throwing him
in the gorge on his refusal to take them to Delhi immediately at that time.
Conversation of that call was recorded by the police. CD thereof was
prepared and placed on record of the Trial Court.
8. During investigation, DVDs of CCTV footage have also
been taken in possession by the police wherein it is visible that at about
10.05 pm crane loaded with a car had arrived at Petrol Pump for filling
fuel and in that footage petitioner, other co-accused, complainant and
deceased are also visible and further that in the CCTV footage, at 11 pm,
complainant Rajan Kumar Singh can be seen running towards and inside
the Petrol Pump.
9. Present petitions have been filed seeking enlargement of
petitioners on bail on the ground of delay in trial, as it has been
contended on behalf of petitioners that even after detention of about 5
years, out of 45 witnesses only 4 witnesses have been examined after
framing charges on 15.9.2023.
10. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that all
petitioners in present case are under-trial prisoners and despite that
7
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
statements of witnesses have not been recorded and case now has been
listed for recording evidence of 3 witnesses on 2.6.2025 and keeping in
view the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood of completion of trial in
near future. It has been further submitted that there is no role of the
petitioners in delaying the trial and, therefore, they are entitled for bail.
11. It has been further submitted that co-accused Mohammad
Faique @ Aayan has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order
dated 10th January, 2025 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1820 of 2024 on the
same grounds who was having the same status like the petitioners as
under-trial prisoners and has been charged for commission of same
offence. It has been further submitted that after passing of order dated
10th January, 2025, there is no change in the status of trial as when case
was listed on 4th March, 2025 for recording the evidence of three
prosecution witnesses, no prosecution witness was present in Court and
therefore, the Trial Court was constrained to adjourn the trial for 2 nd June,
2025.
12. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioners on bail,
learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon order dated 5.7.2023
passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka
Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been
enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months.
8
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred order
dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as
Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section
302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years
9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred order
dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as
Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has
been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the
fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that
time.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on
order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as
Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC
has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering
the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by
that time.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on
order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled as
Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under
Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month
9
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
detention considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 witnesses
were examined by that time.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further referred
order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled as
Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302
IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention
considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were
examined by that time.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further referred
order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302
IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the
fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that
time.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on
order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as
Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302
IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact
that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on
order dated 3.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1631 of 2023, titled as
10
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
Mahammad Aadil Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302
IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 5 months detention
considering the fact that only 1 witness out of 50 witnesses were
examined by that time.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
No. 1627 of 2022, titled as Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has
been released on bail after 6 ½ years.
22. Reliance has also been placed upon order dated 15.2.2023
passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
11714 of 2022, titled as Mukesh Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan &
another, whereby an accused under Section 302 IPC was released on
bail, after custody of 15 months, in case FIR No. 164 of 2020, dated
8.6.2020 registered under Section 307 IPC, but converted into Section
302 IPC on account of death of injured person on account of injuries
caused in the incident of free fight, wherein cross FIRs were registered
by and on behalf of both sides.
23. Further reliance has been placed on order dated 28.6.2023
passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1326 of 2023, titled as Daljeet Rana alias
Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein co-accused in murder case was
11
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
enlarged on bail after 1 year 6 months in case FIR registered for causing
death by gun bullet fired by another co-accused.
24. Reliance has also been placed on order dated 29.8.2023
passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2085 of 2023, Ghanshyam Vs. State of H.P.;
order dated 13.10.2023, passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2540 of 2023, titled
as Subhadra Kumari Vs. State of H.P.; and order dated 18.10.2023
passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2606 of 2023, titled as Lata Devi Vs. State of
H.P., in case of common FIR, wherein husband of Lata Devi had expired
for receiving injuries in a quarrel taken placed in the family and deceased
was under influence of intoxication.
25. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of petitioners on
order dated 9.9.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (Cr.) No. 8523 of 2024, titled as Balwinder Singh Vs. State
of Punjab & Another, whereby petitioner, an accused under Section 302
IPC, despite having direct role in shooting the victim, was enlarged on
bail after detention of 4 years 3 months with observation that trial was
unlikely to be concluded on a near date, whereas out of 47 witnesses 21
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and 9 were given up
and only 17 witnesses were to be examined.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred order
dated 6.10.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6505 of
12
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
2023, titled as Praveen Rathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan &
Another, wherein petitioner, an accused under Section 302 and 120B
IPC, after detention of 4 years 6 months was enlarged on bail by
observing that crucial witnesses had already been examined and out of
76 witnesses 53 witnesses had already been examined with further
observation that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time.
27. Reliance has been placed on order dated 13.8.2024 passed
by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 8518 of
2024, titled as Manishbhai Kalubhai Lathiya Vs. State of Gujarat,
wherein petitioner, an accused under Section 302 IPC, was enlarged on
bail after detention of 2 years 9 months by considering delay in
conducting the trial.
28. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Bombay
High Court dated 25.9.2024 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.
1537 of 2021, titled as Vipul Amrutlal Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Another, reported in 2024(4) BomCR (Cri) 328.
29. Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2530 of
2024, titled as Ashok Kumar @ Governor Vs. State of H.P. has also
been referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, wherein petitioner
an accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention
of about 4 years 2 months by taking into consideration the fact that only 5
13
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
witnesses had been examined till then out of 38 witnesses and there was
no likelihood of earlier conclusion of trial.
30. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No.
1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has also been
referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, wherein petitioner an
accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention of 5
years 5 months by considering the fact that out of 48 witnesses only 16-
18 witnesses had been examined and there was no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in near future.
31. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the
petitioners on order dated 18.9.2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1804 of
2024, titled as Suryakant Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner, an
accused under Section 302 IPC, has been enlarged on bail by co-
ordinate Bench on the ground of delay in trial after custody of more than
3 years 10 months by taking into consideration the fact that there was no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as 23 witnesses were yet to
be examined.
32. Reliance has been placed on order dated 14.6.2024 passed
in Cr.M.P (M) No. 1103 of 2024, titled as Akhil Kaushal Vs. State of
H.P., wherein petitioner, an accused under Section 302 IPC, has been
enlarged on bail after detention of 6 years by taking into consideration
14
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
the fact that out of 25 witnesses only 12 witnesses had been examined
and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioners have put reliance on
order dated 3.7.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, wherein petitioner, an accused under
Section 489B, 489C, 120B read with Section 34 IPC for commission of
offence of smuggling of consignment of counterfeit notes from Pakistan
to Mumbai, has been enlarged on bail after detention of 4 years 5 months
on the ground of delay in trial.
34. Reliance has also been placed on judgment dated 5.4.2024
passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 7691 of 2023, titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. State of
Rajsthan, wherein petitioner, an accused under Section 302 IPC, has
been enlarged on bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
35. Judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Supreme Court
in SLP (Crl.) No. 12939 of 2024, titled as Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu
Taktode Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, has also been
relied by learned counsel for the petitioners, whereby petitioner an
accused under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 has been enlarged on bail after detention of more than 5 years
15
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
on the ground of delay in trial as despite 5 years of detention, charges
have not been framed.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance
upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare
Assn. Vs. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616: 1996 SCC (Cr.) 366
wherein it has been held that a person cannot be kept behind bars when
there is no prospect of trial being concluded expeditiously with following
observation:-
“8. It is in this context that it has become necessary to grant some
relief to those persons who have been deprived of their personal
Cr.MP (M) No. 2935 of 2023 liberty for a considerable length of time
without any prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future.
Undoubtedly, the safety of the community and the nation needs to be
safeguarded looking to the nature of the offences these undertrials
have been charged with. But the ultimate justification for such
deprivation of liberty pending trial can only be their being found guilty
of the offences for which they have been charged. If such a finding is
not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time some relief
becomes necessary.”
37. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance
upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish
Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 453, wherein it has been observed that no accused can be subjected
to unending detention pending trial. Reference to following para has been
emphasized:-
16
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
“40. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious to what has been urged
on behalf of the respondent-accused that cancellation of bail by this
Court is likely to be construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his right
to seek bail. It is not necessary to dwell upon the wealth of case law
which, regardless of the stringent provisions in a penal law or the
gravity of the offence, has time and again recognised the legitimacy of
seeking liberty from incarceration. To put it differently, no accused can
be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the
law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where
statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases
under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has
expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or
for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down,
and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (see Union of India v.
K.A. Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, paras
15 and 17] ).”
38. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated
17.9.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Chintan Vidya Upadhyay
Vs. State of Maharashtra, SLP Criminal No. 2543 of 2021, whereby an
accused in custody for 6 years was enlarged on bail in a case registered
for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
39. So far as orders/judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioners are concerned, I am in agreement with the plea of
learned Additional Advocate General that each and every case has to be
considered on its own merit and in some cases bail has been granted
keeping in view nature of role alleged to have been played by the
17
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
accused therein and considering direct or circumstantial evidence therein
and, therefore, the bail granted in some cases having a lesser period of
detention, may not be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of present
case, because the bail granted in some of cases cannot be said to be a
bail granted in similar circumstances.
40. Petitioners had approached this Court earlier also by filing
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1712 of 2020, 1454 of 2020 and 1453 of 2020 which were
dismissed on 6th January, 2021.
41. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are
permanent resident of India having their family(ies) and, therefore, there
is no possibility of their fleeing from justice.
42. It has been further submitted that petitioners are under-trial
prisoners whose guilt is yet to be proved and continuation of their
detention will amount to conviction and sentence without subjecting to
trial particularly keeping in view the pace of trial.
43. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that petitioners are ready to abide by any condition for enlarging them on
bail and they are also ready and undertake to furnish bail bonds, with
surety of local persons, to the satisfaction of Trial Court to assure their
presence and also their availability during the trial and thereafter.
18
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
44. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate
General that pace of trial is also affected by the conduct of the
petitioner/accused as on 4.1.2024 witnesses were present in the Court,
but could not be examined as except co-accused Mohammad Faique @
Aayan, all other accused persons were unrepresented and they sought
time to engage counsel. Further that on 4.12.2024 matter was adjourned
on the ground that Advocate of three accused, who had to come from
Aligarh, was not available on that date and, therefore, petitioners are not
entitled for bail on ground of delay in trial.
45. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that
charges were framed on 15.9.2023 and case was fixed for recording
evidence on 16.11.2023 and on that date no prosecution witness was
present. Further that on 4.1.2024 though examination of witnesses was
deferred but not at the instance of petitioner(s). Further that on 1.5.2024
statement of only one witness was recorded in examination-in-chief, but
was deferred on request of Public Prosecutor on the ground that Court
time was over.
46. Referring order dated 29.6.2024 passed by the Trial Court,
it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that there is no possibility
of conclusion of trial in near future, as it has been categorically recorded
19
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
by the Trial Court that long dates were given because earlier docket for
recording evidence was full.
47. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that on 4.12.2024 case was transferred from Additional
Sessions Judge-I to Additional Sessions Judge-II and there was no
certainty that statements of witnesses would be recorded on that date
and, therefore, absence of Advocate of other three co-accused cannot be
considered a deliberate or intentional absence for causing delay in trial. It
has been further submitted that on 4th March, 2025, statement of
prosecution witness has not been recorded on account of lapse on the
part of prosecution as prosecution witnesses were not present and there
is no role of petitioner(s) in causing the adjournment or delaying the
recording of evidence in trial.
48. Taking into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances, but without commenting on merits thereon and taking into
account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court
and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of
bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioners may be enlarged on
bail in present case at this stage.
49. Accordingly, present petitions are allowed and petitioners
are ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to their furnishing personal
20
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
bond(s) in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each with two
sureties each in the like amount, one of which, as undertaken by the
petitioner(s) shall be local to the satisfaction of trial Court/Sessions Judge
within two weeks, and upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit
and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated
hereinafter, so as to assure presence of the petitioners at the time of
trial:-
(i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available to
the Police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the
present case as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try
to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution
witnesses;
(iii) that the petitioners shall not obstruct the smooth
progress of the investigation/trial;
(iv) that the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar
to the offence to which they are accused or suspected;
(v) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any
manner;
(vi) that the petitioners shall not jump over the bail;
21
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
(vii) that in case petitioners indulge in repetition of similar
offence(s) then, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled on
taking appropriate steps by prosecution;
(viii) that the petitioners shall keep on informing about the
change in address, landline number and/or mobile number,
if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial; and
(ix) the petitioners shall not leave India without permission of
the Court.
50. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing
and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners,
enlarged on bail, as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open
to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the
petitioners as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.
51. In case the petitioners violate any conditions imposed upon
them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality,
prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of
bail, in accordance with law.
52. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions
issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.
Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
22
( 2025:HHC:5741 )
53. Observations made in these petitions hereinbefore shall not
affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for
the disposal of the bail applications.
The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
12 March, 2025 Judge.
(ms)
SUBHASH Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHAND DHIMAN
DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA,
Phone=3418061207364d8c002725dfc58ff116f678c3d39289db29
CHAND b992cce875905119, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh,
SERIALNUMBER=5ce240fac0e1267843f29509683d09a9912af10
edc4e6cd2ed5d4a8c30134c1b, CN=SUBHASH CHAND DHIMAN
Reason: I am the author of this document
DHIMAN Location:
Date: 2025-03-12 16:37:48