Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 12.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
2025:HHC:27868 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP (M) No. : 1419 of 2025 Reserved on : 12.08.2025 Decided on : 19.08.2025 Manav Sharma ...Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thakur, Mr. Piyush Dhanotia and Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Rattan, Additional Advocates General, assisted by ASI Bhim Singh, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge.
Applicant-Manav Sharma has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:27868 2 seeking, his release on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 97 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered, under Sections 299, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 115(2) 121(1), 109, 61(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNS'), with Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence, for which, he has been arrested by the police, in this case.
3. As per the applicant, the above-noted FIR has been registered on a false complaint, impleading him in a wrong and illegal manner, on the basis of political rivalry.
4. According to the applicant, he is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the bail application, having deep roots in the society, as such, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice.
5. The investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and the applicant is stated to have duly co-operated with the Investigating Agency, during investigation.
2025:HHC:27868 3
6. According to the applicant, four other cases have been registered against him, the details of which are, as under:
(i) FIR No. 72/22, dated 01.05.2022 under Sections 295A, 341 IPC, registered with Police Station Majra;
(ii) FIR No. 25/23, dated 23.03.2023 under Sections 341, 143, 145 IPC, registered with Police Station Dharampur;
(iii) FIR No. 108/24, dated 20.06.2024 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 452, 427 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Nahan;
(iv) FIR No. 96/24, dated 29.09.2024, under Sections 341, 343 IPC, registered with Police Station Nahan.
7. The applicant, through his counsel, has also given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
8. On all these submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 13.06.2025, HC Pradeep Kumar No. 209, was directed to visit Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib and JC Juneja Hospital, to verify 2025:HHC:27868 4 the factual position, as mentioned, in reports No. 38 and
39. In JC Juneja Hospital, HC Sandeep was found in injured condition. Requisite forms were filled for his medico legal examination and MLC was obtained. 9.1. Thereafter, HC Pradeep Kumar No. 209, visited Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib, where ASI Ashish Kumar, was found admitted for treatment. MLC of SI Ashish Kumar was obtained. The Medical Officers of JC Juneja Hospital, and Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, declared the injuries on the person of HC Sandeep Kumar and ASI Ashish Kumar, as simple in nature.
9.2. Thereafter, ASI Ashish Kumar, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, got recorded his statement, under Section 173 of the BNSS to HC Pradeep Kumar No. 209, disclosing therein, that he is posted as I.O. in Police Station Majra.
9.3. On 10.06.2025, a case FIR No. 95 of 2025, was registered, under Section 137(2) of the BNS, on the ground that one Muslim boy had enticed away a Hindu girl. In this context, on 13.06.2025, in the morning, volunteers of 2025:HHC:27868 5 Jagran Manch had gathered at Majra Chowk for demonstration.
9.4. The said mob was pacified by SDPO and Incharge, Police Station, Majra, however, the persons, who were demonstrating there, were again and again stressing that they will finish the person, who has enticed away the girl. Due to their activities, the police apprehended about the violence. As such, police force was requested to be deputed from Police Lines, Nahan and Paonta Sahib. Those policemen were deputed at the house of the main accused Mohseen Khan, in Village Kiratpur, in order to maintain law and order situation.
9.5. ASI Ashish Kumar further got recorded that he, along with other police officials, including HC Sandeep No. 512, LC Gurpreet Kaur No. 274, was also present there. At about 5.30 p.m., from Matak Majari side, the volunteers of Hindu Jagran Manch, including MLA Sukh Ram Chaudhary, MLA Rajeev Bindal, Manav Sharma (applicant), Sunit Gupta, Raj Kumar, Ashish Attri, Nand Lal, Indra, Alka, and other ladies and other persons on 2025:HHC:27868 6 motorcycle, who were having dandas in their hands, were proceeding towards the house of Mohseen. 9.6. The Dy.SP, Paonta Sahib, had tried his level best to pacify them, but, they had not paid any heed to him. When, Dy.SP Paonta Sahib and SHO Majra were trying to pacify them, then, Manav Sharma (applicant) and Sumit Gupta, who were also present in the said mob, were instigating the other persons, by saying that the police is not searching for the girl and that, they themselves have to finish the person, who has enticed away the said girl. Meanwhile, the mob became aggressive. 9.7. Thereafter, someone from the persons belonging to Muslim community had pelted a stone, due to which, tension arose between the two communities and they started pelting stones on each other and also beating each other with dandas. Meanwhile, some of the persons from the mob had also started pelting stones on the police. 9.8. Due to pelting of stones, complainant sustained injuries over his head and forehead. A person, out of the mob, had also hit HC Sandeep with a danda on his head. Consequently, he sustained injuries. Similarly, LC 2025:HHC:27868 7 Gurpreet Kaur, No. 274 had also sustained injuries, which were caused by the members of the mob. As such, a prayer has been made to take action.
9.9. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was entrusted to HC Pradeep Kumar No. 209. During investigation, on 14.06.2025, HC Pradeep Kumar, No. 209, I.O. Police Station Majra, at the instance of complainant ASI Ashish Kumar, visited the spot and spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses, under Section 180 of the BNSS, were recorded. 9.10. It has been found during the investigation that the agitated mob had prevented the police officials from performing their duties and beaten them. As such, Section 121 of the BNS was added, in this case. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was entrusted to SI/SHO Police Station, Majra.
9.11. On 14.06.2025, accused-Sunit Gupta, Manav Sharma (applicant), accused-Jai Prakash, and accused-Raj Kumar, were associated in the investigation and on finding their involvement, they were arrested at about 7.30 p.m. 2025:HHC:27868 8 Thereafter, they were produced before the Doctor for medico-legal examination and their MLCs were obtained. 9.12. It is further case of the police that out of the agitated mob, one person had inflicted gandasi blow on the head of HC Sandeep Kumar. Due to the said blow, the cap worn by HC Sandeep Kumar got cut and he also sustained deep injury over his head, which, as per MLC, is 7 x 2 cm long (elliptical shape).
9.13. It is the further case of the Police that had HC Sandeep Kumar not worn the cap, the said injury could have been dangerous to his life. As such, Section 109 of the BNS was added, in this case.
9.14. During the course of investigation, spot was also videographed. The accused persons, who were arrested, were produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, from where, they were remanded to police custody.
9.15. It is the further case of the police that on 16.6.2025, C. Rijwan, Security Branch, Paonta Sahib, has produced the CD of videography and photographs. Those were analyzed minutely. One Sameer Khan, had also made 2025:HHC:27868 9 available the footage of the CCTV camera installed in his house at Kiratpur, which was examined. The time of the same was found to be 10 minutes ahead of the actual time and the date was found to be 16.6.2025.
9.16. As per the CCTV footage, on 13.06.2025, at about 5.43.35 p.m., a suspicious person was noticed, who had worn black coloured T-shirt and black shorts. He was having gandasa/farsa in his right hand. He had muffled his face with white coloured cloth. The said person was found to be joining the mob. He was followed by another person, who was having danda in his right hand. The said person had also worn the same type of clothes. These persons were found to be moving from Fatehpur towards the house of Mohseen at Kiratpur. Few persons were noticed in the CCTV footage, who were having dandas in their hands. Manav Sharma, was also found to be in the mob at about 5.45.15 p.m. He had worn long white Kurta Pajama, and his tuft of hair was also visible. The said CCTV footage was preserved and submitted to the SI/SHO. 9.17. As per the statement of HC Sandeep Kumar, the said persons were found to be Manav Sharma (applicant), 2025:HHC:27868 10 accused-Sunit Gupta, Raj Kumar and Nand Lal. Those persons were seen with the aggressive mob. 9.18. It is the further case of the police that the attack on the police appears to be at the instance of these persons. It has also been mentioned that both the suspicious persons, shown in the photographs, were having the danda, farsa/gandasa and stones, in their hands.
9.19. The information of those two persons is stated to be in the knowledge of the above four accused persons, who were arrested. The incident is stated to be communal riots. According to the further stand of the police, had the police been not intervened, then, they may have instigated the mob and burnt the house of Mohseen.
9.20. Highlighting the role of Manav Sharma (applicant), accused-Jai Prakash @ Nand Lal, Raj Kumar and Sunit Gupta, it is the case of the police that the said persons had hatched conspiracy and instigated the mob to proceed towards the house of Mohseen and due to this instigation, mob reached at Fatehpur, where stones were pelted on the police. As per the stand taken by the police, 2025:HHC:27868 11 since the above four persons were instigating the mob, to commit violence, Section 61(2) of the BNS was added, in this case.
9.21. As per the status report, the factum of tense situation in the area was apprised to District Magistrate, Sirmaur, so that the communal clashes may not occur. As such, District Magistrate, in order to maintain law and order situation, has imposed Section 163 BNSS, in some of the villages of Majra, till 26.6.2025. 9.22. As per the stand of the police, on the basis of the CCTV footage, on 18.6.2025, accused Solanki was identified. Search was made for him at Kala Amb area and he was enquired. As per the police, said accused Solanki, during the investigation, by the Police, disclosed that the person, who had muffled his face, is Raman Kumar, son of Veer Singh. The said Solanki was arrested on 18.6.2025 and he was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, from where, he was remanded to police custody for four days and thereafter, on 21.06.2025, he was remanded to judicial custody.
2025:HHC:27868 12 9.23. As per the status report, the man with muffled face, who has attacked the police, has been identified as Raman Kumar and efforts were made to nab him. On 27 th June, 2025, on the basis of the status report, filed before this Court, the application filed by accused-Raman Kumar, for anticipatory bail, was rejected and he was taken into custody. According to the police, accused-Raman Kumar is still not disclosing the truth and recovery of gandasa/farsa and motorcycle is yet to be made from him. 9.24. During the course of investigation, it has been found that accused-Raj Kumar, alongwith his friends, applicant-Manav Sharma, accused-Sunit Gupta and Jai Prakash @ Nand Lal has instigated the mob leading to communal riots.
9.25. In the status report, the police has also highlighted the criminal history of the applicant. The cases registered agianst the applicant are stated to be pending adjudication in the competent Courts of Law. 9.26. It has also been mentioned in the status report, that accused-Raj Kumar, Sunit Gupta and Jai Prakash Pandey, alongwith their friend, applicant-Manav Sharma, 2025:HHC:27868 13 at the first instance, has instigated the mob and later on, has encouraged the mob for communal riots. 9.27. An apprehension has also been expressed in the status report that in case, the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, they may again indulge in instigating the people of the area, which may lead to communal riots. 9.28. According to the police, the investigation, in the present case, is still going on and in case of their release on bail, the applicants may influence the investigation.
10. On the basis of the above facts, it has been prayed by the learned Advocate General that the applicants are not able to make out a case in their favour.
11. Highlighting the seriousness of the alleged offence and its implications on the society at large, Mr. Mohinder Zhariack, learned Additional Advocate General, has prayed that the applicant is not entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the bail application. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.
12. The role allegedly played by the applicant, in the commission of the alleged offences, will be proved during the course of the trial. The bail application cannot be 2025:HHC:27868 14 dismissed, as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment, is prohibited under the law. The applicant is presumed to be innocent, till the conclusion of the trial.
13. The applicant is in judicial custody, which is suggestive of the fact that his custodial interrogation is not required by the police. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody for indefinite period, as the chances of commencement and conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright.
14. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that other cases were also found to have been registered against the applicant, particulars of which have been mentioned in the status report and in each case, the applicant has given different addresses. By arguing so, it has been contended that in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for the trial.
2025:HHC:27868 15
15. In this regard, certificates obtained from Secretary/Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Burma Papdi and Secretary/Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Devka Pudla have been relied upon. As per the certificates, no person, by the name of Manav Sharma, s/o Mahavir Sharma has been recorded in the parivar register of Gram Panchayats Burma Papdi and Devka Pudla.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has also place on record photocopy of the certificate issued by Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Burma Papdi, in which, it has been mentioned that Manav Sharma, s/o Mahavir Sharma, is resident of Village Dakali Gadpela, P.O. Burma Papdi, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur.
17. Faced with this, this Court directed the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at nahan to conduct the inquiry and submit the report. In the report, it has been mentioned that Manav Shrma has been found residing with his in-laws in Dakali Gadpela and the certificates issued by Gram Panchayat Burma Papdi and 2025:HHC:27868 16 Devka Pudla, dated 22nd June, 2025 and 19th June, 2025, do not certify the correct status of the address of Manav Sharma.
18. Even otherwise, for the said objection/ apprehension, raised/expressed by the police, in the status report, reasonable conditions can be imposed on the applicant, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
19. Mere registration of other criminal cases, against the applicant, cannot be made basis to decline relief of bail to the applicant, as, no conviction has been recorded in any of the above-referred cases, so far, by the competent Courts of law.
20. Moreover, the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the basis of parity, as his co-accused, namely Raj Kumar, Sunit Gupta and Jai Prakash, have already been released on bail, by this Court, vide judgment, dated 28 th July, 2025, passed in CrMPs (M) No. 1414, 1420 and 1421 of 2025.
2025:HHC:27868 17
21. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
22. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 97 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered, under Sections 299, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 115(2) 121(1), 109, 61(2) and 118(1) of the BNS, with Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., on his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of ₹ 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan or any Judicial Magistrate First Class, stationed at Nahan, District Sirmaur. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:
a) That the applicant 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;
b) That the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) That the applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person 2025:HHC:27868 18 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer;
d) That the applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court;
and
e) That the applicant shall furnish an affidavit before the learned trial Court, as well as, before the SHO, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., about the place of his abode, and shall also intimate the learned trial Court, as well as, the SHO, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, about the change, if any, in his residential address.
23. 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 applications.
24. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.
25. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
26. In case, the applicants are not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the 2025:HHC:27868 19 Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Sirmaur at Nahan. The Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is further directed that if the applicants fail 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
August 19, 2025
( rajni )
Digitally signed
RAJNI by RAJNI
Date: 2025.08.19
11:51:31 +0530