Himachal Pradesh High Court
Daniel Chenaux vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2009 of 2024 a/w Cr.MP(M) Nos. 2010, 2011 and 2012 of 2024 Reserved on: 10.03.2025 Date of Decision: 20th March 2025.
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2009 of 2024 Daniel Chenaux ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. ...Respondents
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2010 of 2024 Daniel Chenaux ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. ...Respondents
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 2011 of 2024 Daniel Chenaux ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. ...Respondents 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 2012 of 2024 Daniel Chenaux ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S. Parth Swami, Advocate in all the petitions.
For Respondent No.1/State. : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General in all the petitions.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arjun Lal, Advocate in all the petitions.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The informant made a complaint to the police that Precilia, the petitioner's daughter, had gone towards Manali with Sh. Nishant Thakur. She sent a message to the petitioner on his WhatsApp that she would not be returning to her home. She could not be contacted thereafter. The police conducted the investigation and found that Nishant Thakur and the deceased had stayed together at Hotel Black Magic, Manali on 07.08.2024 in Room No. 202 where Precilia died. Nishant Thakur and co-accused took the dead body of the deceased in Vehicle No. HP-58-4340 and threw it in the river at 15 miles. The dead body was recovered from the river. The accused filed bail petitions before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court released the accused on bail vide order dated 28.08.2024 after holding that the homicide was ruled out in the present case.
2. Aggrieved from the order, the petitioner has filed the present petitions for seeking cancellation of the bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu District Kullu, H.P. It has been asserted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting the bail in a hurry without waiting for the report from FSL. The petitioner has lost his daughter. The accused committed 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) the crime and disposed of the dead body in connivance with each other. The deceased was not wearing any clothes except panties, which made her death highly suspicious. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice the gravity of the offence; hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be cancelled.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a report to the police that deceased Precilia and Nishant Thakur went to Manali on 07.08.2024. She could not be contacted. The police registered a missing report and conducted an investigation. It was found during the investigation that Precilia and Nishant had stayed in Room No. 202 of Black Magic Hotel, Shang. Precilia consumed heroin and died due to the heroin overdose. Her dead body was thrown in the Beas River by Nishant and Archit Sharma. Subsequently, the dead body of Precilia was recovered. The involvement of Ajay Kumar and Ankit Sharma was also found in the commission of crime. They were arrested and were subsequently released on bail. As per the report of analysis, Tapentadol, Ketamine, Tramadol, Dextromethorphan, Codeine, Diazepam, 6-monoacetylmorphine, Norhydrocodone and 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) Cannabinoids were found in the blood of the deceased. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the death occurred due to pulmonary oedema caused by the cumulative effect of multiple intoxicating substances found in the blood of the deceased. The investigation is continuing and the result from RFSL is awaited.
4. Respondent No.2-Nishant Thakur filed a separate reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and locus standi. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail to the accused after due application of mind and consideration of the relevant material collected during the investigation. The FIR mentions that the deceased went with Nishant Thakur out of her free will and the offence punishable under Section 114(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is not made out. The other offences are bailable and learned Trial Court was justified in granting the bail. The report of RFSL also shows that death had taken place due to the consumption of narcotics. Respondent No.2 had not violated the terms and conditions of the bail, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 )
5. I have heard Mr J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr S. Parth Swami, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr Arjun Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused.
6. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in granting the bail to respondent No.2/petitioner. This Court can interfere with the bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge when it has been granted on irrelevant consideration. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar versus Vitthal Damuji Meher and Ors. 2024: INSC:636, Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, 2020 (2) SCC 118 and Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 (9) SCC 321, in support of his submission.
7. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the State is not aggrieved by the grant of the bail and an appropriate order may be passed.
8. Mr. Arjun Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused submitted that the bail can be cancelled if the bail conditions are violated by the accused. He relied upon the 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Kumar versus State of H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2025 decided on 20.02.2025 in support of his submission. He has fairly submitted that he does not want to press the preliminary objection taken by him regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition.
9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 that the bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically however, an un- reasoned and perverse order is open to interference by the Superior Court. The bail can be cancelled if there are serious allegations against the accused. 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) 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] .]
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 the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 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 weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24) "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 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) 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."
Considerations for Setting Aside Bail Orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined, and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused ought to be avoided. Suffice it to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh [Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560], a three-judge Bench of this Court has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439CrPC is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding a bail application. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect the due application of the judicial mind following well-established principles of law. In the ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Rambilas [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338:
2001 SCC (Cri) 1124]; Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 13 SCC 584: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 813].)
11. Similar is the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve (supra) 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 SCC OnLine SC 974, apropos relevant parameters for granting bail, observed:
"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. (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;10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) 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 the 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 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) 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 )
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 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 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 )
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.'
8. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118, this Court opined as under:
'16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. ...'
9. In Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 INSC 761, this Court, in view of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:
'13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of the grant of bail, cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present, and bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and XXX v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.'
10. In XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2023 INSC 767, this Court noted that the principles in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) stood reiterated in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) 9 SCC 321.13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 )
11. The contours of anticipatory bail have been elaborately dealt with by 5-Judge Benches in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 is worthy of mention in this context, despite its partial overruling in Sushila Aggarwal (supra). We are cognizant that liberty is not to be interfered with easily. More so when an order of pre-arrest bail already stands granted by the High Court.
12. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits." (emphasis supplied)
21. In Ajwar (supra), this Court also examined the considerations for setting aside bail orders in terms below:
"28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined, and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused ought to be avoided. Suffice it to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra) (2022) 9 SCC 321, a three- judge bench of this Court has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is of wide amplitude 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect the due application of the judicial mind following well-established principles of law. In the ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Ram Bilas (2001) 6 SCC 338; Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC
584)" (emphasis supplied)
12. A similar view was taken in Kailash (supra) wherein it was observed:
10. The decision of this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr.
(2024) 10 SCC 768, relied on by the High Court, has been perused. In terms of such decision, while seized of an application for cancellation/revocation of bail, the considerations (illustrative, not exhaustive) which ought to weigh with the courts are whether: (i) the accused has misused the concession of liberty; (ii) he has been delaying the trial; (iii) he has been influencing/threatening the witnesses; (iv) he has been tampering evidence in any manner; and (v) there has been any supervening circumstance after grant of bail warranting a relook. The decision also lays down that orders granting bail could be interfered with if the same is found to be perverse or illegal in the sense that the Court's conscience is shocked or extraneous material has been considered.
13. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 )
14. The status report shows that the Medical Officer had issued a final report stating that the death had taken place due to pulmonary oedema caused by the cumulative effect of multiple intoxicating substances found in the blood of the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that the drugs were forcibly administered to the deceased by the accused. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to conclude that the present case is one of homicide.
15. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the offence of kidnapping was not made out because the deceased had voluntarily accompanied the accused-Nishant Thakur. She had herself sent a message to the petitioner that she would not be returning during the night.
16. The accused can only be held liable for the destruction of the evidence, which is a bailable offence and bail could not have been denied to them in the present case.
17. It was submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting bail without waiting for the report of the FSL and the final report of the Medical Officer. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) was to see the culpability of the accused based on the material collected by the prosecution. The liberty of a person could not have been curtailed with the expectation that incriminating material would be found against them. The prosecution is at liberty to seek the cancellation of the bail in case a grave offence was made out after the investigation. However, it is impermissible to detain a person without sufficient material on record.
18. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly released the accused on bail based on the material placed before it.
19. It was submitted that the petitioner had lost his daughter and learned Trial Court had not considered this fact. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1313 that the Courts cannot make someone a victim of injustice to compensate the victim for his injustice. It was observed at page 767:
"87. We cannot shy away from the fact that it is a ghastly case of rape and murder of a 6-year-old child. By not conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution has done injustice to the family of the victim. By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant. The court cannot make 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6863 ) someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime."
20. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make a case for the cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused
21. Consequently, the present petitions fail and the same are dismissed.
22. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) 20 March,2025 th Judge (Saurav Pathania)