Himachal Pradesh High Court
Umesh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 June, 2025
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1294 and 1295 of 2025
Reserved on: 16.06.2025
Date of Decision: 21.06.2025.
1. Cr. MP(M) No.1294 of 2025
Umesh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2. Cr. MP(M) No.1295 of 2025
Tara Chand …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 N0
For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Anubhav Chopra and
Bhairav Gupta, Karan Kapoor,
Advocates in both the petitions.
For the Respondent/State :Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General in both the
petitions.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
Both the petitions have been filed for seeking regular
bail in the same FIR; hence, these are being taken up together for
disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking
regular bail in FIR No. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at
Police Station West, Shimla, for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149,
323, 325, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC“) and
Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act”).
3. It has been asserted that the petitioners are innocent
and were falsely implicated. Co-accused Ram Lal, Sushil, Om
Prakash, Harish, Ram Chand, Bhanu, Rajesh, Lakshay, Nitin and
Nikhlesh were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
Criminal No.8545-8549/2024 on 23.09.2024 and SLP Criminal
No.8792-8796/2024 on 16.10.2024. This Court granted regular
bail to Vinay Sharma in Cr.MP(M) No.2765 of 2024 on 31.01.2025.
Shankar Lal, Ashish, Hemant, Rajiv Sharma and Geeta Ram were
granted regular bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos.217, 468, 469,
470 and 471 of 2025 on 10.04.2025. Rajiv Sharma was granted bail
3
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No.6348/2025 on
21.05.2025. The petitioners are also placed on the same footing
and are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. They would
abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. Hence, the petitions.
4. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports
asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on
1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since
deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand in
Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the
informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had
fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam Chand
had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her home on a
bus. She told Sewa Nand that she would call him after getting off
the bus, however, she could not call him back, as she was unable
to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son,
Med Ram, about the call. The police also called her and inquired
whether she had authorised any person to burn the dead body, to
which she replied in the negative. Med Ram went to the village
and found that the dead body of Tikam Chand had been burned by
the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with
4
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
₹5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered that Tikkam
Chand had committed a theft in a temple, and the villagers had
beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR. It was found
that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on 21.3.2024 that
police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police called Rajiv
Sharma, who said that one person had lit a fire near the temple.
He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being taken to the
police post. The police waited for the person, but nobody came to
the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv Sharma in the
morning, and he said that the person had been sent to his home.
Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70 metres.
from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand. Tara
Chand informed other villagers, who were present near Sheetla
Mata Temple, about the death of Tikkam Chand. The villagers
gathered in the house of Ward Member Jagdish Chand. He called
Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other
members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the members
of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by Tikkam
Chand. They also said that Tikkam Chand was sent to his home.
He was heavily intoxicated, and fell in a state of intoxication.
Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved the samples.
5
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead
body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his
home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand
and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The
call details were also checked, and the persons were found in
touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv
Sharma, Vinay Sharma, Ashish and Hemant saw that Sheetla
Mata Temple was set on fire on 21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went
to the temple and found Tikkam Chand setting the temple on fire.
Rajiv Sharma informed the police about this fact. Rajiv Sharma
told Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Ram Lal, Rajesh,
Jagdish, Harish, etc., about the incident. They reached the temple
and gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tikkam Chand revealed that
Rahul was also involved in the theft. He was brought from his
home by Ram Lal, Umesh, Bhanu, Nikhilesh, Nikhil, Nitin,
Lakshay and Jagdish Chand. They gave beatings to Rahul. Rahul
also saw Tikkam Chand lying on the floor. His head and face were
bleeding. Rajiv, Hemant, Ashish, Vinay, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram,
Shankar Lal, Harish and Sushil were present, and they gave
beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The villagers also took their
6
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
photographs and prepared the video. Subsequently, Tikkam
Chand died, and his dead body was burned. The police arrested
Vinay, Ashish, Shankar Lal, Geeta Ram, Rajiv Sharma and Tara
Chand. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, Tikkam Chand
could have died due to beatings given with a stick recovered by
the police. It was found that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled
Caste; hence, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added. As per
the investigation conducted by the police, Vinay Sharma,
Hemant, Rajiv, and Ashish reached the complex of Sheetla Mata
Temple on 21.3.2024 after noticing the fire. They caught hold of
Tikam Chand. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about the
apprehension of the thief. Accused Tara Chand, Shankar Lal and
Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven persons gave beatings to
Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Harish Kumar
noticed bleeding injuries suffered by Tikam Chand. Rahul saw
Tikam Chand lying near the Hawan Kund. He noticed the
petitioners and other accused persons. Tara Chand, Rajiv and
other persons gave beatings to Rahul. The report from FSL has
been received. There is sufficient material to connect the
petitioners with the commission of a crime. They had given
7
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
beatings to Tikam Chand, which led to his death. They had
cremated the dead body and destroyed the evidence. The
photographs of Tikam Chand and Rahul were found in the mobile
phone of Vinay. The petitioners are involved in a heinous offence.
They can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail;
therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.
5. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior
Advocate, with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Bhairav Gupta and Karan
Kapoor, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the
respondent/State.
6. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the petitioners are innocent and were falsely
implicated. The co-accused have been granted bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and this Court. The petitioners are entitled to bail
on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present
petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
7. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners
are involved in the commission of a heinous crime, which is
8
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
punished with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of
the offence and the severity of the punishment, he prayed that
the present petitions be dismissed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. 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 as under at page
783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a
matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations
made against the accused, the manner in which the crime
is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of
the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of
justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused
on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman
Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri)
1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of
U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar
9( 2025:HHC:19162 )
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] .]
10. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:-
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly
related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered to
exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the
grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the
discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to
facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence
of the 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. The relevant
observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the 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
10( 2025:HHC:19162 )
legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and
anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570,
this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court
to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
observed in the following terms:–
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on
a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to
impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a
reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in
the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and
should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the
view that the present facts and circumstances of the
case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be
imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable 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
11( 2025:HHC:19162 )
court, exercising jurisdiction to grant 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)
11. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
12. The present petitions have to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in SLP Criminal
No.6348/2025 that the co-accused Rajiv Sharma had undergone
incarceration for more than one year and one month, and the
other co-accused have been granted anticipatory or regular bail.
The charge was not framed; therefore, the co-accused Rajiv
Sharma was entitled to bail on the principle of parity. As per the
status report, Rajiv Sharma had inflicted injuries on the deceased.
The status report also shows that Umesh and Tara Chand had also
kicked the deceased with Rajiv Sharma; therefore, the role
attributed to the petitioners and the co-accused Rajiv Sharma is
the same. Since the co-accused Rajiv Sharma has been released on
bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to the delay in trial and the
fact that the other co-accused had been released on bail,
12
( 2025:HHC:19162 )
therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to bail on the principle
of parity.
14. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed and
the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one
surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court.
15. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the
following terms and conditions: –
(I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor
will they influence any evidence in any manner
whatsoever;
(II) The petitioners shall attend the trial in case a charge
sheet is presented against them and will not seek
unnecessary adjournments;
(III) The petitioners will not leave their present addresses
for a continuous period of seven days without
furnishing the addresses of their intended visit to the
SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial
Court;
(IV) The petitioners will surrender their passport(s), if
any, to the Court; and(V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number(s)
and social media contacts 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(s) or social media
13( 2025:HHC:19162 )
accounts, the same will be intimated to the
Police/Court within five days from the date of the
change.
16. 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.
17. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of.
18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on
the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
21st June, 2025
(rupsi)