Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 18.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23399 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. 312 of 2025 Decided on : 18.07.2025 _________________________________________________________ .
Neetu Negi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
For the petitioner: Mr. Topender K. Verma,
Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocate General.
Coram
{{{{
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Neetu Negi] has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S'], originated from FIR No.44 of 2025, dated 21.02.2025, under Sections 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S], registered at Police Post Saproon, Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan [H.P.].
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS -2- 2025:HHC:23399
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner has been roped on false and frivolous .
allegations. It is averred that the personal liberty and right to life can neither be curtailed nor deprived on basis of mere accusation which are asserted to be incurred by State Authorities. Petitioner has averred that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in above accusation. It is averred that bail petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and is willing to abide by any terms and conditions, as may be imposed by this Court. Petitioner has furnished undertakings that she shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts of the case in any manner and shall not flee away from justice.
2(i). Petitioner is stated to have filed an application for grant of pre arrest bail before this Court bearing Cr.MP(M) No.297 of 2025 since the same was lacking ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:23399 particulars it was withdrawn on 19.2.2025.
It is in this background, that the petitioner has filed the instant bail petition.
.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
3. The instant bail application listed before this Court on 21.02.2025 when, this Court issued notice to Respondent-State Authorities, to furnish the Status Report. In view the averments made in the bail application and the submissions made, this Court, granted interim bail, to the petitioner on 21.02.2025.
3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report(s) on 05.03.2025, 04.04.2025, 09.05.2025 on the Instructions of Station House Officer, Women Cell, Solan, District Solan (HP) to have a recap as to whether the petitioner was cooperating with the Investigating Agencies or not with the directions to file fresh Status Report.
Accordingly, this Court adjourned the matter when, Fresh Status Report dated 05.06.2025 and another ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:23399 Report dated 04.07.2025 was filed, indicating that the petitioner-accused had joined investigation and was cooperating with the Investigating Agencies. The matter .
was taken up on 18.07.2025, when, the same was finally heard, by this Court.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:
4. Averments in the Status Report(s) are pari materia, pointed out the factual matrix that one Shri Surinder Sethi, Resident of 10-A Sona Villa Housing Board, Phase 2, Saproon, Solan, aged 73 years had registered a complaint stating that on 30.01.2025 he had gone to Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, Shimla and while he was returning back for Solan he received a call from Mobile No. 8350865607 on three-four occasion(s).
Ultimately, on receiving the call, a lady [accused-
petitioner] requested that she wants to meet the complainant in relation to some work and intends to hand over some papers to him. Upon meeting the complainant, the accused, requested the complainant, to ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:23399 give her a lift, in his vehicle, upto Saproon By-Pass [near Solan]. The complainant averred the accused got down from his car, when, he found that his Gold Chain had .
been stolen by the accused.
4(i). Status Report(s) reveals that pursuant to the aforesaid incident the police swung into action. Call Details Records and CAF were obtained. Status Report further reveals that the accused joined investigation on 22.02.2025. During investigation, the accused was asked about the gold chain but she made waivering statement(s). Monetary transactions were scrutinized revealing that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 2.2.2025 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.02.2025 was transferred in her saving bank account, by one Shri Harbans, and aforesaid amount has nothing to do with allegations herein. Status Report states that petitioner-accused stated that she has purchased a gold chain, on occasion of her husband's birthday in 2023, for which she will submit the bills. Status Report indicates ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:23399 that the petitioner-accused had joined investigation on 08.05.2025, 13.05.2025, 17.05.2025, 20.05.2025 and 05.06.2025. It is also borne out from the records that on .
02.07.2025, search was conducted at the house of petitioner-accused, but nothing was recovered. In this background, Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail petition and prayed for the dismissal of the bail application.
5. to Heard, Mr. T.K.Verma, Learned Counsel, for the bail petitioner and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-
State.
6. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the claim for bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:23399 Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528;
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, .
(2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to believe or point out towards the accusation and even these parameters for bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
6(i). While dealing with the case for grant of bail, three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has mandated in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para-25 that the "nature of crime" has a huge relevancy, while considering the claim for bail.
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS -8- 2025:HHC:23399
6(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State
of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of .
the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under:
"11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the r prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including:
(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence;
(ii) The severity of punishment;
(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not;
(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/ witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings;::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:23399
(vi) Possibility of accused tampering with
evidence;
(vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct
the due course of justice;
.
(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;
(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge;
(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required r to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr. PC, as the case may be."
6(iii). In normal parlance, the general principle of law is that while considering the prayer for bail [pre-arrest bail or regular bail], a prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards the accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or whether a person ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:23399 has falsely roped in the crime needs to be tested in background of self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein .
above.
6(iv). This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No.3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate to of Enforcement, 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, a r decided on Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof, severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused during the trial, reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with or any possibility of causing an inducement, threat or promise ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:23399 to either the witnesses or complainant or victim by carving out a balance between the liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the societal interests of the public-State at .
large.
In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court, is required to form a prima facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASE:
7. After taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, statutory provisions and the mandate of law and on considering the material on record, including the Status Report this Court is of the considered view that the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 21.02.2025 is made absolute, for the following reasons:-
7(i). The material on record, does not point ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:23399 out any prima facie accusation, against the bail petitioner.
7(ii). Material on record, including the Status .
Report(s), does not indicate that reasonable grounds exist for believing the accusation against the bail petitioner. Even the accusation against the petitioner for offences under Section 303(2) of the BNSS originating from F.I.R. No. 44 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025 is a matter to be, examined, tested and proved during the trial, in accordance with law.
7(iii). Since the petitioner-accused has joined investigation and even presumption of guilt cannot be attributed to the bail petitioner at this stage.
7(iv). Further, the accusation against the bail petitioner is not grave, nature coupled with the fact, that the bail petitioner is a lady and has joined the investigation. Moreover, the denial of bail cannot be preventative nor punitive. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved as per the mandate of law ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:23399 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242. Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.
.
In these circumstances, this Court, is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, in instant case.
REFORMATIVE INTENT AND CLAIM FOR BAIL:
7(v). While dealing with the concept of bail which has humanist and reformative intent coupled with the fact that the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another.
ADHERANCE TO PRINCIPLE:- BAIL IS RULE:
7(vi). Depriving the petitioner the concession of bail shall negate the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception', as outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:23399 Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024.
.
NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
7(vii). Status Reports does not indicates any past criminal antecedents against the bail petitioner and therefore, the action of the State Authorities in prolonging the detention certainly violates and curtail the personal liberty of bail petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
NO APPREHENSION OF FLEEING AWAY:
7(viii). The Status Report filed by the State Authorities does not indicate any likelihood of the bail petitioner, fleeing away from the administration of justice i.e. the Investigation or the Trial. In absence of any such apprehension by the State Authorities the claim for bail, needs to be accepted. Ordered accordingly.
NO APPREHENSION OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES:
7(ix). Pursuant to the orders dated 21.02.2025
::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:23399
granting interim bail, the petitioner has joined
investigation and the Status Report has not narrated any adversial circumstances the Status Report filed by .
the State Authorities does not indicate any likelihood of bail petitioner tampering with evidence or witnesses.
In absence of any such material in the Status Report, the claim for bail needs to be accepted. Ordered accordingly.
7(x). to Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances as mentioned above and the material on record, the prayer for bail carries weight, when, the allegations/accusation in the Status Report are yet to be tested and proceedings the trial. Denial of bail cannot be by way of punishment. Bail cannot be withheld on mere surmises; when, the accusation is not so grave, in facts of this case. Moreover, the Status Report does not indicate that petitioner required for Custodial interrogation. Personal liberty of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:23399 cannot be curtailed or taken away on the basis of mere accusation, as in this case. Even the petitioner has furnished the undertakings before this Court that .
she will join the Investigation [as and when called] and shall appear in the trial therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is granted to the petitioner.
8.
CONCLUSION:
r to In view of above discussion, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of bail petitioner-accused [Neetu Negi], for pre-arrest is allowed.
The interim bail order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Court, is made absolute, mandating the petitioner to comply with the conditions contained in the order dated 21.02.2025, hereinafter, for all intents and purposes.
9. It is clarified, that any of the observations made hereinabove, shall not be construed as findings [for or against either of the parties herein, for purposes of trial], which shall proceed in accordance with law, ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:23399 without being prejudiced by the observations contained hereinabove.
In the aforesaid terms, instant petition .
is allowed and the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 18, 2025 (tm) ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:19:40 :::CIS