Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:24263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) Nos.: 1377 & 1378 of 2025
Reserved on : 17th July, 2025
.
Decided on : 25th July, 2025
1. Cr.MP (M) No.1377 of 2025
Sanjeev Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP (M) No.1378 of 2025
Krishna Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kumar
and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, assisted by ASI
Vinay Kumar, Police Station,
Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
2 2025:HHC:24263
Virender Singh, Judge
The above titled applications, are being decided
.
by a common order, as t he applicants have filed these
applications, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’),
as they are apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.103
of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered, under Sections
308(5), 351(2), 115(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police
Station Bhuntar, District Kullu.
2. By way of the present applications, indulgence
of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/
Investigating Officer of Police Station Bhuntar, District
Kullu, H.P., to release the applicants on bail, in the event
of their arrest, in the above noted case.
3. According to the applicants, they are innocent
persons and have falsely been implicated by the Police, in
this case,
4. As per the applicants, they are from a
respectable families and are having deep roots in the
society.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
3 2025:HHC:24263
5. It is the case of the applicants, that when
applicant Krishna Devi, on 4.6.2025, after attending a
.
business meeting, her car was intercepted by the
complainant and he become abusive and physically violent
towards applicant Krishna Devi in public, whereas,
applicant Sanjeev Kumar, being driver, intervened to
prevent bodily harm to a woman.
6. According to the applicants, the complainant
was hostile against them and in order to wreck vengeance,
had lodged the FIR against them with the ulterior motive to
harass and humiliate them. The applicants had further
pleaded that they have no concern whatsoever, with the
crime, in question.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Vijay
Kumar Arora, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates, has given
certain undertakings, for which, the applicants are ready
to abide by, in case any direction is issued to the police/
Investigating Officer, in the abovenoted case, under the
provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
4 2025:HHC:24263
8. On the basis of the above facts, the police was
directed to file the status report. Consequently, the police
.
has filed the status report, on 17.06.2025, disclosing
therein, that on 10.06.2025, a zero FIR was received from
Police Station, Sarkaghat, which was forwarded to Police
Station Bhuntar. The zero FIR, reveals the following facts:
8.1. That on 10.06.2025, at about 11.00 a.m.,
complainant Rakesh Verma, received a phone call and the
caller disclosed her name as Krishna Pujari, who has
called him to her house, on the pretext of helping the
complainant to purchase land.
8.2. Consequently, the complainant reached at the
house of said Krishna, who offered him water. After ten
minutes, one person came there and objected as to what
he is doing in her residence, when the woman is all alone.
The said person clicked his photographs and started giving
beatings to him. Not only this, he has snatched the golden
chain and two rings, as well as, Rs.12,000/, in cash from
complainant.
8.3. According to the complainant, Krishna Pujari
used to call him on mobile phone No.9817035000. He has
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
5 2025:HHC:24263
further got recorded that since, he has not sustained any
injuries, as such, he does not want his medicolegal
.
examination. According to him, the incident had taken
place at Pahnala.
8.4. On the basis of the above facts, the police
registered the zero FIR.
8.5. Since, the incident had taken place within the
jurisdiction of Police Station, Bhuntar, as such, the FIR
was forwarded for further action, upon which, the police
registered the FIR in question and further investigation
was entrusted to HC Tilak Raj, who visited the spot and
prepared the spot map.
9. During investigation, complainant Rakesh
Verma has disclosed that on 10.06.2025, at about 11.00
a.m., he received a whatsApp call from mobile phone
No.9817935000 on his mobile number 9418045051.
Since the complainant was on his way to visit the orchard,
as such, Krishna Pujari, after making audio call, shown
him the passage. When, he reached at her house, Krishna
Pujari, firstly, took him to her bed room, where water was
offered to him. Meanwhile, another person came there.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
6 2025:HHC:24263
10. The complainant does not know his name, but,
he can identify him, who has objected his presence, by
.
saying as to what was he doing there, when a woman was
residing all alone. Thereafter, the said person has
snatched away the golden chain, golden rings, along with
currency notes of Rs.12,000/, from him.
11. Thereafter, Krishna Pujari allegedly took him to
other bed room. The complainant was made to sit on the
chair and Krishna Pujari allegedly told to the complainant
that she will return the articles and request him to leave
the spot. Thereafter, the complainant came back. He was
perplexed, as such, he has got recorded his report at Police
Station Sarkaghat.
12. On the basis of the above facts, the police
added Sections 308(5), 351(2) and 61(2) and deleted
Section 134 of the BNS.
13. As per the status report, the following cases
were found to have been registered against applicant
Krishna Devi:
i) FIR No. 27 of 2014, dated 01.02.2014, under
Sections 353, 457, 323, 332, 34 of the IPC;
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
7 2025:HHC:24263
ii) FIR No. 180 of 2015, dated 26.11.2015, under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC;
iii) FIR No. 52 of 2016, dated 08.04.2016, under
.
Sections 341, 323, 397, 392, 326, 506, 34 of
the IPC;
iv) FIR No. 271 of 2020, dated 06.10.2020, under
Sections 341, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC;
v) FIR No. 298 of 2020, dated 21.11.2020, under
Sections 364A, 342, 388, 506, 323, 120B of
the IPC;
vi) FIR No.305 of 2020, dated 02.12.2014, under
Sections 342, 323, 364A, 388, 504, 506, 120B
of the IPC;
vii) FIR No. 96 of 2021, dated 30.05.2021, under
Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 365, 212, 188,
384, 34 of the IPC & 39 of H.P. Excise Act;
viii) FIR No.24 of 2022, dated 11.02.2022, under
Sections 376, 323 of the IPC;
ix) FIR No.223 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024, under
Sections 140(3), 351(2), 352, 115(2) and 3(5) of
the BNS;
14. After perusing the said status report, interim
protection was granted to the applicants and the matter
was adjourned for 24.06.2025.
15. In the status report filed on 24.06.2025, a
specific stand has been taken that the accused persons are
not cooperating with the investigation. Highlighting the
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
8 2025:HHC:24263
fact that cases against applicant Krishna for similar
offences have also been registered, it is the case of the
.
police that due to their act, there is fear and tension in the
area.
16. After registration of the FIR, against the
applicants, other persons have also tried to contact the
police. This fact has been pleaded to show that applicant
Krishna had done similar act with other persons also, who
were not making the complaints, to avoid themselves from
public humiliation. The said persons are also associated in
the investigation.
17. According to the police, applicants have not got
recovered anything and the investigation is going on.
18. On 1.7.2025, the police filed the fresh status
report, disclosing therein, that the applicants have not got
recovered two rings, as well as Rs.12,000/. Thereafter,
the matter was adjourned for 4.7.2025 and then for
11.07.2025.
19. On 11.07.2025, the police filed the
supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on
9.7.2025, complainant Rakesh Verma, along with Kuldheer
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
9 2025:HHC:24263
Singh son of Hem Singh came to the police and got
recorded his statement, disclosing therein, that on
.
6.6.2025, Sanjeev Kumar and Krishna Devi called him to
visit their orchard and Krishna Devi had taken away
Rs.2,40,000/, which were kept in the vehicle and Sanjeev
Kumar, got transferred Rs.5,000/ through mobile
scanner.
20. Again
r a stand has been taken that the
applicants are not getting the recovery effected. Thereafter,
the matter was adjourned to 17th July, 2025. On
17.7.2025, similar stand has been taken by the police.
21. In the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the applications.
22. The applicants have joined the investigation and
they have also been associated in the investigation.
However, according to the police, they are not getting the
recovery effected regarding the golden chain, golden rings,
and currency of Rs.12,000/.
23. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive
action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery
effected from the applicants as, in view of the decision of
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
10 2025:HHC:24263
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia &
Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court
.
Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section
438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered
himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph
43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
43. During the last couple of years this Court,
while dealing with appeals against orders
passed by various High Courts, has granted
anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing
conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
The Court has, in addition, directed in most of
those cases that (a) the applicant should
surrender himself to the police for a brief period
if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to
have surrendered himself if such a discovery is
to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the
Court has, in view of the material placed before
it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will
remain in operation only for a week or so until
after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters
covered by the order. These orders, on the
whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the
least inconvenience to the individuals concerned
and least interference with the investigational
rights of the police. The Court has attempted
through those orders to strike a balance
between the individual’s right to personal
freedom and the investigational rights of the
police. The appellants who were refused
anticipatory bail by various courts have long
since been released by this Court under Section
438(1) of the Code.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
11 2025:HHC:24263
24. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and
.
others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020)
5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is
reproduced as under:
“92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding
“limited custody” or “deemed custody” to
facilitate the requirements of the investigative
authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of
fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the
event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a
fact, which is relatable to a statement made
during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such
event, there is no question (or necessity) of
asking the accused to separately surrender and
seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed
that
“19…if and when the occasion arises, it
may be possible for the prosecution to
claim the benefit of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of
facts made in pursuance of information
supplied by a person released on bail by
invoking the principle stated by this Court
in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.”
25. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the
bail applications, has been opposed mainly on the ground
that applicants are not getting the recovery effected. The
alleged refusal/noncooperation of the applicants, to the
considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
12 2025:HHC:24263
for dismissal of the applications, as no one can be
compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is
.
violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
26. If the facts and circumstances of the present
case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah
versus Kamal Dayani & Others, (2025) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 753, the applicants are entitled to the relief,
as claimed, in the applications. Relevant paragraph 43 of
judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“43. We are of the firm opinion that non
cooperation by the accused is one matter and
the accused refusing to confess to the crime is
another. There would be no obligation upon the
accused that on being interrogated, he must
confess to the crime and only thereafter, would
the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the
accused has cooperated with the investigation.
As a matter of fact, any confession made by the
accused before a police officer is inadmissible in
evidence and cannot even form a part of the
record.”
27. In this case, as per the status reports, nine
cases have been found to be registered against applicant
Krishna Devi. Admittedly, in none of the cases, conviction
has been inflicted by the competent Court of law nor she
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
13 2025:HHC:24263
has been declared as habitual offender, as per the
provisions of law. As such, merely, on the basis of the
.
registration of the other cases, adverse inference cannot be
drawn against applicant Krishna Devi.
28. The applicants are permanent residents of
District Kullu, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in
case the interim order is made absolute, they may not be
available for the trial.
29. The role attributed to the applicants would be
proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be
nothing, but pretrial punishment, which is prohibited
under the law.
30. Considering the totality of circumstances, this
Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to
the applicants, is required to be made absolute, as, no
useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present
applications, which would result into the judicial custody
of the applicants.
31. Considering all these facts, the interim orders
dated 17.06.2025, passed by this Court, in both the cases,
are hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
14 2025:HHC:24263
applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest,
in case FIR No.103 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered,
.
under Sections 308(5) 351(2), 115(2), and 61(2) of the BNS,
on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of
₹50,000/ each, with two sureties each of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order,
however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
a) That the applicants will join the investigation of
the case, as and when, called for, by theInvestigating Officer, in accordance with law;
b) That the applicants will not leave India, without
prior permission of the Court;
c) That the applicants will 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 the Investigating Officer or the Court; and
d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial
Court on each and every date of hearing and if
prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption
from appearance by filing appropriate application.
32. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present applications.
::: Downloaded on – 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS
15 2025:HHC:24263
33. It is made clear that the respondentState is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
.
the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the
applicants.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
July 25, 2025 (ps)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS