Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:24263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.: 1377 & 1378 of 2025 Reserved on : 17th July, 2025 .
Decided on : 25th July, 2025
1. Cr.MP (M) No.1377 of 2025
Sanjeev Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP (M) No.1378 of 2025
Krishna Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Vinay Kumar, Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS2 2025:HHC:24263 Virender Singh, Judge The above titled applications, are being decided .
by a common order, as t he applicants have filed these applications, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), as they are apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.103 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered, under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 115(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNS'), with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu.
2. By way of the present applications, indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/ Investigating Officer of Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., to release the applicants on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above noted case.
3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated by the Police, in this case,
4. As per the applicants, they are from a respectable families and are having deep roots in the society.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS3 2025:HHC:24263
5. It is the case of the applicants, that when applicant Krishna Devi, on 4.6.2025, after attending a .
business meeting, her car was intercepted by the complainant and he become abusive and physically violent towards applicant Krishna Devi in public, whereas, applicant Sanjeev Kumar, being driver, intervened to prevent bodily harm to a woman.
6. According to the applicants, the complainant was hostile against them and in order to wreck vengeance, had lodged the FIR against them with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate them. The applicants had further pleaded that they have no concern whatsoever, with the crime, in question.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case any direction is issued to the police/ Investigating Officer, in the abovenoted case, under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS4 2025:HHC:24263
8. On the basis of the above facts, the police was directed to file the status report. Consequently, the police .
has filed the status report, on 17.06.2025, disclosing therein, that on 10.06.2025, a zero FIR was received from Police Station, Sarkaghat, which was forwarded to Police Station Bhuntar. The zero FIR, reveals the following facts: 8.1. That on 10.06.2025, at about 11.00 a.m., complainant Rakesh Verma, received a phone call and the caller disclosed her name as Krishna Pujari, who has called him to her house, on the pretext of helping the complainant to purchase land.
8.2. Consequently, the complainant reached at the house of said Krishna, who offered him water. After ten minutes, one person came there and objected as to what he is doing in her residence, when the woman is all alone.
The said person clicked his photographs and started giving beatings to him. Not only this, he has snatched the golden chain and two rings, as well as, Rs.12,000/, in cash from complainant.
8.3. According to the complainant, Krishna Pujari used to call him on mobile phone No.9817035000. He has ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:24263 further got recorded that since, he has not sustained any injuries, as such, he does not want his medicolegal .
examination. According to him, the incident had taken place at Pahnala.
8.4. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the zero FIR.
8.5. Since, the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bhuntar, as such, the FIR was forwarded for further action, upon which, the police registered the FIR in question and further investigation was entrusted to HC Tilak Raj, who visited the spot and prepared the spot map.
9. During investigation, complainant Rakesh Verma has disclosed that on 10.06.2025, at about 11.00 a.m., he received a whatsApp call from mobile phone No.9817935000 on his mobile number 9418045051.
Since the complainant was on his way to visit the orchard, as such, Krishna Pujari, after making audio call, shown him the passage. When, he reached at her house, Krishna Pujari, firstly, took him to her bed room, where water was offered to him. Meanwhile, another person came there.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS6 2025:HHC:24263
10. The complainant does not know his name, but, he can identify him, who has objected his presence, by .
saying as to what was he doing there, when a woman was residing all alone. Thereafter, the said person has snatched away the golden chain, golden rings, along with currency notes of Rs.12,000/, from him.
11. Thereafter, Krishna Pujari allegedly took him to other bed room. The complainant was made to sit on the chair and Krishna Pujari allegedly told to the complainant that she will return the articles and request him to leave the spot. Thereafter, the complainant came back. He was perplexed, as such, he has got recorded his report at Police Station Sarkaghat.
12. On the basis of the above facts, the police added Sections 308(5), 351(2) and 61(2) and deleted Section 134 of the BNS.
13. As per the status report, the following cases were found to have been registered against applicant Krishna Devi:
i) FIR No. 27 of 2014, dated 01.02.2014, under Sections 353, 457, 323, 332, 34 of the IPC;
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS7 2025:HHC:24263
ii) FIR No. 180 of 2015, dated 26.11.2015, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC;
iii) FIR No. 52 of 2016, dated 08.04.2016, under .
Sections 341, 323, 397, 392, 326, 506, 34 of the IPC;
iv) FIR No. 271 of 2020, dated 06.10.2020, under Sections 341, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC;
v) FIR No. 298 of 2020, dated 21.11.2020, under Sections 364A, 342, 388, 506, 323, 120B of the IPC;
vi) FIR No.305 of 2020, dated 02.12.2014, under Sections 342, 323, 364A, 388, 504, 506, 120B of the IPC;
vii) FIR No. 96 of 2021, dated 30.05.2021, under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 365, 212, 188, 384, 34 of the IPC & 39 of H.P. Excise Act;
viii) FIR No.24 of 2022, dated 11.02.2022, under Sections 376, 323 of the IPC;
ix) FIR No.223 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024, under Sections 140(3), 351(2), 352, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS;
14. After perusing the said status report, interim protection was granted to the applicants and the matter was adjourned for 24.06.2025.
15. In the status report filed on 24.06.2025, a specific stand has been taken that the accused persons are not cooperating with the investigation. Highlighting the ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:24263 fact that cases against applicant Krishna for similar offences have also been registered, it is the case of the .
police that due to their act, there is fear and tension in the area.
16. After registration of the FIR, against the applicants, other persons have also tried to contact the police. This fact has been pleaded to show that applicant Krishna had done similar act with other persons also, who were not making the complaints, to avoid themselves from public humiliation. The said persons are also associated in the investigation.
17. According to the police, applicants have not got recovered anything and the investigation is going on.
18. On 1.7.2025, the police filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, that the applicants have not got recovered two rings, as well as Rs.12,000/. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 4.7.2025 and then for 11.07.2025.
19. On 11.07.2025, the police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on 9.7.2025, complainant Rakesh Verma, along with Kuldheer ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:24263 Singh son of Hem Singh came to the police and got recorded his statement, disclosing therein, that on .
6.6.2025, Sanjeev Kumar and Krishna Devi called him to visit their orchard and Krishna Devi had taken away Rs.2,40,000/, which were kept in the vehicle and Sanjeev Kumar, got transferred Rs.5,000/ through mobile scanner.
20. Again r a stand has been taken that the applicants are not getting the recovery effected. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 17th July, 2025. On 17.7.2025, similar stand has been taken by the police.
21. In the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the applications.
22. The applicants have joined the investigation and they have also been associated in the investigation.
However, according to the police, they are not getting the recovery effected regarding the golden chain, golden rings, and currency of Rs.12,000/.
23. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery effected from the applicants as, in view of the decision of ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:24263 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court .
Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS11 2025:HHC:24263
24. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and .
others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under: "92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding "limited custody" or "deemed custody" to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that "19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya."
25. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail applications, has been opposed mainly on the ground that applicants are not getting the recovery effected. The alleged refusal/noncooperation of the applicants, to the considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:24263 for dismissal of the applications, as no one can be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is .
violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
26. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah versus Kamal Dayani & Others, (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 753, the applicants are entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the applications. Relevant paragraph 43 of judgment, are reproduced, as under: "43. We are of the firm opinion that non cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record."
27. In this case, as per the status reports, nine cases have been found to be registered against applicant Krishna Devi. Admittedly, in none of the cases, conviction has been inflicted by the competent Court of law nor she ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:24263 has been declared as habitual offender, as per the provisions of law. As such, merely, on the basis of the .
registration of the other cases, adverse inference cannot be drawn against applicant Krishna Devi.
28. The applicants are permanent residents of District Kullu, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case the interim order is made absolute, they may not be available for the trial.
29. The role attributed to the applicants would be proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be nothing, but pretrial punishment, which is prohibited under the law.
30. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicants, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present applications, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicants.
31. Considering all these facts, the interim orders dated 17.06.2025, passed by this Court, in both the cases, are hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:24263 applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No.103 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered, .
under Sections 308(5) 351(2), 115(2), and 61(2) of the BNS, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of ₹50,000/ each, with two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;
b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;
c) That the applicants will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and
d) That the applicants 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.
32. 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 applications.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS15 2025:HHC:24263
33. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of .
the bail conditions, is found violated by any of the applicants.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
July 25, 2025 (ps)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2025 21:27:06 :::CIS