Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 15.7.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23619 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1473 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.7.2025 Date of Decision: 22.7.2025.
Farooq Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore,
Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 102 of 2025, dated 9.5.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 152, 196 and 197 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 9.5.2025 based on false allegations made against him. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:23619 petitioner has no role in the commission of the crime. He was apprehended based on suspicion. The petitioner is a respectable person in society. The investigation is complete, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint that the petitioner had shared anti-Nation, anti-Army, anti-Hindu and anti-Prime Minister videos which had hurt the feelings of common people. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. One video shows the insulting comments which affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. In one video, a Pakistani National was making insulting comments about the Prime Minister of India. One video of the Pakistani News Channel, All India News 24x7, was also shared in which a Reporter was making insulting comments about the Indian Army. The police seized the mobile phone and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner had shared the videos of his Facebook post. The mobile number was found in the name of the 3 2025:HHC:23619 petitioner. A request was sent for the retrieval of the data, but this request was rejected by Meta, the owner of Facebook. FIR No. 65/07 was registered against the petitioner, in which he was convicted. Another FIR No. 52/2021 is pending against the petitioner. The electronic device has been sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and the result of the analysis is awaited. A charge sheet would be filed after the receipt of the prosecution sanction. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The allegations made against the petitioner do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence justifying the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. The status report shows that the investigation is complete. The police have sent the electronic device to RFSL, Dharamshala for analysis. The petitioner cannot tamper with the device at FSL. The prosecution sanction has not been obtained, and it would take 4 2025:HHC:23619 some time. The petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Javed Ahmad Hajam Vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) 4 SCC 156, Nitin Vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 2885, Mohammad Amir Ahmad alias Ali Khan Mahmudabad Vs. State of Haryana 2025 SCC Online SC 1253 and Imran Pratapagadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 in support of his submission.
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in activities which prejudicially affect the harmony in the society and the sovereignty of the country. The petitioner had shared the videos when the relationship between Indian and Pakistan was highly strained. The shared videos hurt the sentiments of the people. The petitioner has criminal antecedents and is likely to commit the offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
5
2025:HHC:23619
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein 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 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) 6 2025:HHC:23619 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:-
"12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
"14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice" has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied) 7 2025:HHC:23619
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose "any condition" on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: --
"15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed." (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed:
"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the 8 2025:HHC:23619 complainant, and that too, without any trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The FIR has been registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 152, 196 and 197 of BNS, which correspond to Sections 124A, 153A and 153B of the IPC. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 286: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414 that Section 124A applies to such activities which are intended to tend to create disorder or disturbance of the public peace. It was observed at page 339:
45. These passages elucidate what was accepted by this Court in preference to the decisions of the Privy Council in Gangadhar Tilak [Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, 1897 SCC OnLine PC 23: (1897-98) 25 IA 1] and in King Em-
peror v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao [King Em- peror v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, 1947 SCC OnLine PC 9 :
(1946-47) 74 IA 89]. The statements of law deducible from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955] are as follows:
45.1. "The expression 'the Government established by law' has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the 9 2025:HHC:23619 administration. "Government established by law"
is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 24) 45.2. "Any acts within the meaning of Section 124- A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 24) 45.3. "Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 24) 45.4. "A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6:
1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 25) 45.5. "The provisions of the sections [ The reference was to Sections 124-A and 505IPC.] read 10 2025:HHC:23619 as a whole, along with the Explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 26) 45.6. "It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc., which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order."
(Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769:
AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 26) 45.7. (g) "We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 27) As the statement of law at para 45.5 above indicates, it applies to cases under Sections 124-A and 505IPC.
According to this Court, only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence are rendered penal.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. State of H.P. (1995) 3 SCC 124, that the written or spoken words should have the tendency or intention of causing public disorder or disobedience of law and order. The intention 11 2025:HHC:23619 of causing disorder or inciting people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence. It was observed:-
9. Insofar as the offence under Section 153-A IPC is concerned, it provides for punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. In our opinion, only where the written or spoken words have the tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affect public tranquillity, that the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity. The facts and circumstances of this case unmistakably show that there was no disturbance or semblance of disturbance of law and order or public order or peace and tranquillity in the area from where the appellants were apprehended while raising slogans on account of the activities of the appellants. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC, and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. In this case, the prosecution has not been able to establish any mens rea on the part of the appellants, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 153-A IPC, by their raising casually the three slogans a couple of times. The offence under Section 153-A IPC is, therefore, not made out.
14. This position was reiterated in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was observed:-
16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings 12 2025:HHC:23619 of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC, and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge, nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
17. In Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266: AIR 1988 SC 775], this Court held that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal tension and violence and the provisions of Section 153-A IPC would not apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to national integration, falling under Section 153-B IPC. Approving the observations of Vivian Bose, J., in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [AIR 1947 Nag 1] The Court observed that "the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. ... It is the standard of an ordinary, reasonable man, or as they say in English law, 'the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus'."
(Ramesh case [(1988) 1 SCC 668: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266:
AIR 1988 SC 775], SCC p. 676, para 13) 13 2025:HHC:23619
18. Again, in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 431: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1094], it is held that the common feature in both the sections, viz. Sections 153-A and 505(2), being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Further, it was observed that merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.
15. A similar view was taken in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156: (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 383:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 249(supra), wherein it was observed at page 161: -
7. In Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417], while interpreting Section 153-A, in para 16, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 9)
"16. Section 153-AIPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-AIPC, and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be 14 2025:HHC:23619 judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge, nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning." (emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] referred to the view taken by Vivian Bose, J., as a Judge of the erstwhile Nagpur High Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5: AIR 1947 Nag 1] A Division Bench of the High Court dealt with the offence of sedition under Section 124-AIPC and Section 4(1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. The issue was whether a particular article in the press tends, directly or indirectly, to bring hatred or contempt to the Government established in law. This Court has approved this view in its decision in Ramesh v. Union of In- dia [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266]. In the said case, this Court dealt with the issue of the applicability of Section 153-AIPC. In para 13, it was held thus : (Ramesh case [Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266], SCC p. 676) "13. ... the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. ... It is the standard of an ordinary, reasonable man or as they say in English law, 'the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus'. (Bhagwati Charan Shukla case [Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5: AIR 1947 Nag 1], SCC OnLine MP para 67)" (emphasis supplied) 15 2025:HHC:23619 Therefore, the yardstick laid down by Vivian Bose, J., will have to be applied while judging the effect of the words, spoken or written, in the context of Section 153-AIPC.
9. We may also make a useful reference to a decision of this Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya [Patri- cia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35]. Paras 8 to 10 of the said decision read thus : (SCC pp. 41-43) "8. 'It is of utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have a civil society.'-- Thomas Jefferson. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is a very valuable fundamental right. However, the right is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right of free speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Speech crime is punishable under Section 153-AIPC. Promotion of enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with a fine or with both under Section 153-A. As we are called upon to decide whether a prima facie case is made out against the appellant for committing offences under Sections 153-A and 505(1)(c), it is relevant to reproduce the provisions, which are as follows:
***
9. Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquillity, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-AIPC, and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea 16 2025:HHC:23619 in order to succeed. [Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214: 1995 SCC (Cri) 432]
10. The gist of the offence under Section 153-AIPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge, nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning [Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 417] ."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
10. Now, coming back to Section 153-A, clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 153-AIPC is attracted when by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, an attempt is made to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The promotion of disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill will must be on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other analogous grounds. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC will apply only when an act is committed which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity.
16. There is no averment in the status report that any person, including the informant, was incited to resort to violence. The video recording of the Facebook posts was played 17 2025:HHC:23619 in the Court. They may be in bad taste, but they do not tend to incite any person to violence or create disturbance in public peace. Hence, prima facie, the applicability of Sections 152 and 196 of BNS is highly doubtful.
17. The police have already seized the electronic device and sent it to RFSL for analysis. The offence alleged against the petitioner requires prosecution sanction under Section 217 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, which is likely to take some time. There is a force in the submission of Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely, hoping for the early commencement of the trial.
18. The status report does not show that the petitioner is required for investigation. Keeping in view the fact that the result of the analysis is awaited, releasing the petitioner on bail will not affect the ongoing investigation.
19. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he should not be released on bail. The criminal antecedents would have assumed significance if a prima facie case had been made out against the accused. As already noticed, 18 2025:HHC:23619 there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 152 and 196 of BNS. Therefore, the criminal antecedents are not sufficient for the pre-trial detention of the petitioner.
20. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile 19 2025:HHC:23619 number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
21. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
22. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Sadar, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
23. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.
24. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd July, 2025 (Chander) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.22 13:10:45 IST