Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anshul Dogra @ Dholi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:28986 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1803 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.08.2025 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025.
Anshul Dogra @ Dholi ...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. Jeevan Kumar & Ms. Ekta Kumari, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 222 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at police station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the FIR was lodged against Tanu, Manu, Nanu, and Goldy. The victim, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
( 2025:HHC:28986 ) Rohit Kumar, did not mention the name of the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 173 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A quarrel occurred between the victim Rohit Kumar, Atul Kumar and the main accused. However, the police implicated the petitioner without any material. The petitioner was arrested in January 2025. The investigation has been completed. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, 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 police received an information on 18.12.2024 that a fight had taken place in Kangra Bazaar and the injured were taken to the Civil Hospital. The police went to verify the correctness of the information. The informant Rohit made a statement to the police that he was going to his home on 18.12.2024. He met his friends Rohit and Aman. He was talking to them when Tanu, his brother Manu, Nanu and Goldy reached the spot on two motorcycles. Tanu and Manu were armed with swords. Nanu had a tessi and a baseball bat. Goldy had an iron pipe, which had a gear-like contraption welded on it. All of them 3 ( 2025:HHC:28986 ) attacked Atul. The informant tried to save him. Mannu attacked the informant with the sword. Tanu inflicted a blow on the informant's hand. They also gave beatings to Atul. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. Police seized the various articles during the investigation. The petitioner, Anshul Dogra @ Dholi, is a resident of the same village. He went to the spot with Manpreet Singh, who was armed with a sword and Taranjeet, who was armed with a baseball bat. The petitioner remained on the spot. The petitioner Anshul Dogra @ Dholi stopped Atul Kumar when he tried to run away from the spot. He remained on the spot while the other co-accused ran away from the spot. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is now listed on 08.09.2025 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses No.2 and 3. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Jeevan Kumar & Ms. Ekta Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely 4 ( 2025:HHC:28986 ) implicated. As per the prosecution, he had merely accompanied the co-accused to the spot. He did not cause any injury to the victim. The petitioner was arrested on 24.12.2024, and nearly 08 months have elapsed since the arrest of the petitioner. The prosecution has only examined 01 witness. The charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had accompanied the co-accused to the spot. He prevented the injured from running away from the spot when he was being beaten. This conduct shows that the petitioner shared the common intention with the co-accused. The victim sustained injuries which were dangerous to life. The offences are heinous in nature. 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. 5
( 2025:HHC:28986 )
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, 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 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] .]
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 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"6
( 2025:HHC:28986 ) 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 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:28986 ) 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 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)
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 status report shows that the informant has not named the petitioner as the assailant in the FIR. As per the investigations, the petitioner had accompanied the co-accused and prevented the injured from running away. This was stated to be sufficient to implicate the petitioner with the aid of Section 3(5) of BNS.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) No.6191/2025, titled Rahul Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 28.07.2025, that when no specific role was 8 ( 2025:HHC:28986 ) attributed to the accused in the FIR, he did not cause injury to the victim and did not have any Criminal antecedents, he is entitled to bail. It was observed:-
"6. We have considered the rival submissions. Having regard to the fact that no specific role is attributed to the appellant in the first information report and the main role of causing injury to the deceased is ascribed to co-accused, Aditya, from whom incriminatory recovery is made and that the respondent-State has failed to point out any criminal antecedents of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending trial."
14. In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was named subsequently during the investigation; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The petitioner was arrested on 24.12.2024; more than 08 months have elapsed since his arrest. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner and the absence of his name from the FIR, the further detention of the petitioner is not justified.
16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his 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. 9
( 2025:HHC:28986 ) 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 furnishing the 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 the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
17. 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.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai Open Air Correctional House, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
10
( 2025:HHC:28986 )
19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.
20. 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) 27 August 2025 th Judge (Shamsh Tabrez) Digitally signed SHAMSH by SHAMSH TABREZ TABREZ Date: 2025.08.27 15:01:00 +0545