Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 16.06.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 June, 2025
2025:HHC:19158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1233 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.06.2025 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025.
Amanjeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Parikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2025, dated 1.5.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) and 238 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 9.5.2025. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The victim herself left her parents' 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:19158 house, and the petitioner has not committed any offence. 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 made a complaint to the police that the victim was found missing. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim was found in the house of Jagir Singh. She made a statement that she had left the home and gone to Chandigarh. She searched for a job but could not find any job. She called her neighbour, who advised her to stay in the Gurudwara and took her with him on the next day. The SIM was kept by the neighbour with him. Her mobile phone was put into a bucket by the petitioner and thrown into the river. The victim was born on 1.4.2008 and was a minor on the date of the incident. The petitioner had kept the victim in her home with her father-in-law and husband. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner should not be released on bail.
4. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 3
2025:HHC:19158
5. Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. She has a young child who is dependent upon her. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had conspired with the co-accused and kept the victim in her home. She destroyed the SIM and threw away the mobile phone. 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.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271, wherein it was observed as under: -
"19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role ascribed to the accused concerned, possibilities/chances of tampering with the evidence and/or witnesses, antecedents, flight risk, et al. Speaking through Hima Kohli, J., the present coram in Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 4 2025:HHC:19158 SCC OnLine SC 974, apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed:
"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. (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118.
27. It is equally well settled that bail, once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the Superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a Superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on society, resulting in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) (2022), 15 SCR 211 decided by a three-judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must be weighed with the Court for interfering in an 5 2025:HHC:19158 order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words:
"24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail, but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." (emphasis supplied)
20. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the Court, while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting (anticipatory) bail, discussed and reasoned:
"7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus: '9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among 6 2025:HHC:19158 other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail." (emphasis supplied)
9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The petitioner is a woman. Section 480 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita (BNSS) provides that the Court may direct a person accused of or suspected of commission of any non- bailable offence be released on bail if such person is a child or a woman, or is sick or infirm. This provision applies to a person brought before the Court other than the High Court or Court of Sessions, but the Courts have to keep this special provision in mind while considering the bail application of the persons falling 7 2025:HHC:19158 in the categories mentioned in Section 480 of BNSS. It was laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Nethra vs State of Karnataka (12.05.2022 - KARHC): MANU/KA/2055/2022 that a woman can be released on bail even in case of murder because of special provisions under Section 437 of CrPC. It was observed:
"In terms of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., bail can be granted in a non-bailable offence in three circumstances as depicted in the proviso: (i) being a person below 16 years of age, (ii) a woman, and (iii) sick or infirm. The petitioner is a woman. She is entitled to consideration under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Before applying the aforesaid provision to the facts of the case and considering the case of the petitioner for enlargement on bail, it is germane to notice the application of the said provision by coordinate Benches of this Court all in the case of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and they being women. xxxxxxx All the afore-quoted judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court were considering the purport of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and were cases where the accused No. 1 therein were women, and all of them were alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for the commission of murder. It is also a matter of record that the alleged accomplice in the act of murder, Vijay Kumar, was granted bail on 13-04-2022 by the learned Sessions Judge. For the aforesaid facts, the statute, i.e., Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and its application in the judgments of three coordinate Benches all would enure to the benefit of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the fact that the offence alleged is under Section 302 of the IPC. It is not the law that bail should always be denied in a case where the offence punishable is death or life imprisonment. In exceptional cases, if the 8 2025:HHC:19158 statute permits and the facts are not being so gory and grave criminal antecedents shrouding the culprit, the consideration in such cases would be different."
11. The status report shows that the victim herself left the home when she had a quarrel with her father. She sought work at Chandigarh but could not get it, and thereafter called her neighbour, who advised her to stay at the Gurudwara and thereafter took her with him to his home. The petitioner put the victim's mobile phone in a bucket and threw it away. These allegations only make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 238 of the BNS, which is bailable.
12. The investigation is complete, and the presence of the petitioner is not required for the investigation. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.
13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds 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: -
9
2025:HHC:19158 (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on 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 furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her 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 the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
14. 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.
15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District, Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
10
2025:HHC:19158
16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.
17. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla) 21 June 2025 st Judge (Chander)