Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 12.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 19 March, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:6579 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP(M) No.421 of 2025
Reserved on : 12.03.2025
Decided on: 19.03.2025
Pooja ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the applicant : Mr. P.M. Negi and Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, assisted by HC Anil Chandel, No.367, Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), applicant-Pooja has sought her release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.337 of 2024, dated 19.12.2024, registered 2 2025:HHC:6579 under Sections 331(3), 305 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS'), with Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, she has falsely been implicated, in the present case. According to her, she has nothing to do with the crime and the investigation, in the present case, is complete, highlighting the fact that the challan (final report) will be filed shortly in the Court.
3. It has been prayed by the applicant that her mother is not keeping good health and as such, no one is there to look after her minor children, aged about 18 years and 13 years.
4. As per applicant, total 10 cases have been registered against her, out of which, in two cases, she has been acquitted and other 8 cases are still pending adjudication.
5. According to the applicant, she had earlier tried her luck by moving similar applications, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, before the Court of learned 3 2025:HHC:6579 Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. However, both applications were dismissed vide orders dated 14.01.2025 and 10.02.2025, respectively.
6. Apart from this, Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 19.12.2024, complainant-Munish Nanda has informed the police that a theft has taken place in his house.
9. Complainant has further informed that he is the resident of Village Mattan Sidh, District Hamirpur and running a petrol pump and his son is also working there with him. His wife is working as Superintendent in Co- Operative Department, Hamirpur. His father is running a stationery shop at Bhota Chowk, Hamirpur. 4
2025:HHC:6579
10. According to the complainant, he had kept the cash of Rs.12 lacs, on account of the sale proceeds of the petrol pump, for 4-5 days, in the almirah. Apart from this, his wife Poonam Nanda has also kept Rs.63,000/- cash in almirah. In order to do the domestic chores, they had engaged the services of one lady, namely Rakhi.
11. It has been mentioned by the complainant that on 18.12.2024, as usual, complainant's father had gone to his shop. The complainant and his son had gone to petrol pump and his wife had also gone to her duty. The domestic helper came in the morning and she was directed not to come in the evening. At about 05:45pm, when, his father came back, the gates were found locked. When, his father opened the gate, he noticed that the latch of the room was broken, upon which, the father of the complainant informed the wife of the complainant, who had informed the complainant. Subsequently, he, his wife and son reached at the spot. When, they checked the almirah, the locker of the same was also found to be broken and cash of Rs.12,63,000/- was not found there.
5
2025:HHC:6579
12. It is the further case of the complainant that the CCTV was also found to be stolen. According to him, some unknown person had stolen the currency notes of Rs.12,63,000/-, upon which, the police registered the case, under Sections 331(3), 305 and 238 of BNS. Subsequently, the criminal machinery swung into motion.
13. Thereafter, when, CCTV footage was perused in the mobile phone of the complainant, on 18.12.2024, at about 12:10 pm, a woman was found to be coming near the camera. From her physical appearance, she was found to be ragpicker. The CCTV footage of the other cameras was also checked and the said lady was also found to be in one of the CCTVs' footage of the camera, installed in the house of one Rattan Chand.
14. As per CCTV footage, the said lady was seen to be having a bag on her back and thereafter, she had boarded a small commercial vehicle. The registration number of the said vehicle was found to be HP-67-7369, owned by Baldev S/o Mali Ram. Subsequently, the said person was contacted on his mobile phone, who disclosed 6 2025:HHC:6579 that on 18.12.2024, he permitted Pooja W/o Shabu (applicant) to board his vehicle and dropped at Annu, where, she resides. When, she was enquired, she admitted the crime and consequently, was arrested.
15. Thereafter, she was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. In the judicial custody, she has also got recovered the ornaments, which she had allegedly purchased from the stolen money. She has also made a disclosure statement to the effect that she had mortgaged her ornaments with one Raj Kumar. She has paid an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from the stolen money to Raj Kumar to get her mortgaged ornaments back.
16. As per status report, 12 cases are stated to have been registered against the applicant, out of which, the following 10 cases are pending adjudication:-
1. Case No.102 of 2007, dated 30.09.2007, under Sections 454, 511 of IPC, P.S. Sujanpur.
2. Case No.26 of 2014, dated 01.02.2014, under Sections 454, 380, 411, 413, 414 of IPC, P.S. Kangra.
3. Case No.41 of 2017, dated 26.06.2017, under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC, P.S. Gaggal.
4. Case No.128 of 2017, dated 29.07.2017, under Sections 454, 380, 411, 34 of IPC, P.S. Dharamshala.
5. Case No.123 of 2019, dated 31.07.2019, under 7 2025:HHC:6579 Sections 454, 380 of IPC, P.S. Palampur.
6. Case No.75 of 2019, dated 02.09.2019 under Sections 454, 380 of IPC, P.S. Bhawarna.
7. Case No.95 of 2019, dated 09.07.2019, under Sections 454, 380, 34 of IPC, P.S. Dehra.
8. Case No.68 of 2019, dated 26.05.2019, under Sections 454, 380, 411, 34 of IPC, P.S. Dehra.
9. Case No.105 of 2019, dated 22.07.2019, under Sections 454, 380, 34 of IPC, P.S. Dehra.
10. Case No.118 of 2019, under Sections 454, 380, 411 of IPC, P.S. Kullu.
17. As per status report, in following two cases, the applicant has been acquitted:-
1. Case No.219 of 2019, dated 19.08.2019, under Section 454, 380 of IPC, P.S. Sadar Kullu, (acquitted)
2. Case No.51 of 2012, dated 20.02.2012, under Sections 454, 380, 511 of IPC, P.S. Hamirpur, H.P. (acquitted).
18. As per status report, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the challan (final report) has been submitted in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and has been fixed for 23.03.2025.
19. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.
20. Admittedly, out of 12 other cases, 11 cases are theft cases and in two cases, applicant has been acquitted.
21. The applicant is in judicial custody since 8 2025:HHC:6579 30.12.2024, as per status report. In such situation, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to whether the applicant can be kept in the judicial custody, as a matter of punishment, as, admittedly, the trial against the applicant has not yet commenced.
22. So far as the registration of other cases is concerned, no doubt, she has been named as accused in cases of theft, but, without her conviction in those cases, merely, on the basis of the large number of cases, it cannot be said that the applicant falls within the definition of 'habitual offender'.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North District Delhi Police', reported in 1966 AIR SC 1766, has considered the powers of the police officials to make entries in the surveillance register and also held, as under:-
"7. A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient 9 2025:HHC:6579 to justify action under Rules 23.4(3)(b) and 23.9(2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender."
24. In this regard, it is further apt for this Court to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar', reported in 1984(3) SCC 14. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:-
"11. According to its ordinary meaning, the word 'habitual' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1, P.910 is :
"A. adj (1) Belonging to the habit or inward disposition, inherent or latent in the mental constitution;
(2) of the nature of a habit; fixed by habit;
constantly repeated, customary.
B. A habitual criminal, drunkard, etc."
12. A person is a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition, inherent or latent in him, has grown accustomed to lead a life of crime. It is the force of habit inherent or latent in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him dangerous to the society in general. In strengthen language the word 'habitually' means 'by force of habit'."
25. Judging the facts and circumstances of the 10 2025:HHC:6579 present case, in the light of the above two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not fall, within the definition of 'habitual offender'.
26. Moreover, the applicant is in judicial custody, from the date of his arrest i.e. 30.12.2024 and the chances of commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright.
27. Even otherwise, the applicant cannot be kept in the judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period, as a matter of punishment, as, the punishment can only be inflicted, after the conclusion of trial, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law.
28. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for her release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. Hence, the present bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
29. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released, on bail, in case FIR No.337 of 2024, dated 11 2025:HHC:6579 19.12.2024, registered under Sections 331(3), 305 and 238 of the BNS, with Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., on her furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
30. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
a) The applicant shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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 the appropriate application;
b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and
d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
31. 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 bail application. 12
2025:HHC:6579
32. It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.
33. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of District Jail, Hamirpur, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
34. In case, applicant is not released within a period of seven days, from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of District Jail, Hamirpur, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Hamirpur. The Superintendent of District Jail, Hamirpur, H.P., is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.
(Virender Singh) Judge March 19, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur) Digitally signed by MAMTA RAO Date: 2025.03.19 14:19:49 IST