CRMPM/1914/2026 on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1914 of 2026 Reserved on: 12.10.2026 Date of Decision: 15.10.2026

Najar

…. Petitioner

Versus

State of HP

…. Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner

: Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 53 of 2026, dated 23.02.2026, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(4) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant was assaulted by the petitioner on 31.01.2026, and F.I.R. No. 29 of 2026, dated 31.01.2026, was registered against the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

petitioner at Police Station Baddi regarding this incident. The petitioner made a call to the informant on 20.02.2026 and told him to pay ₹50,00,000/- to the petitioner to keep him (the informant) and his family members safe. The present FIR was registered based on the complaint made by the informant. These allegations are false. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner's custody is not required. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Panchkula (Haryana), and he has roots in the society. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the court may impose. Hence, 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 was assaulted by the petitioner and his friends on 31.01.2026 and F.I.R. No. 29 was registered regarding this incident. The petitioner made a call to the informant on 20.02.2026, at about 03:36 p.m. and threatened to kill the informant and his son, who was studying in Chandigarh. He demanded ₹50,00,000/- for keeping the informant and his family members safe. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner's call details record was obtained, and it was found that the petitioner had called the informant twice on 20.02.2026; however, the informant had not picked up the call. The informant called back, and the petitioner threatened the informant and his family members. The petitioner had earlier assaulted the informant with his two friends. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court on 11.06.2026. FIR No. 114 of 2024, dated 03.02.2024, F.I.R. No. 135 of 2021 dated 12.08.2021, F.I.R. No. 382 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025, F.I.R. No. 150 of 2025, dated 18.06.2025, F.I.R. No. 29 of 2026, dated 31.01.2026 and F.I.R. No. 66 of 2026, dated 10.03.2026 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was fined ₹100 in FIR No. 85 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The matter was listed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on 08.10.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Panchkula. He has roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier assaulted the informant. He threatened to kill the informant and his family members. The petitioner demanded ₹50,00,000/- as protection money. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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 Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)

57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied)

58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “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

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx

62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time, while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….”

10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. The status report states that the petitioner and his friends had assaulted the informant. The petitioner called the informant and threatened to kill him and his family members. He demanded ₹50,00,000/- as protection money. The police checked the call detail records and found that the petitioner had called the informant twice. The informant could not pick up the call, and he called back. The call detail records, prima facie, corroborate the informant's version that the petitioner had intimidated him and demanded ₹50,00,000/- as protection money.

12. The allegations against the petitioner, prima facie, show that first, he had beaten the informant and thereafter demanded the money by threatening to kill the informant and his family members. These allegations are serious, as the informant's life was put in danger. The petitioner has, prima facie, undermined the protection of the laws, and treating the offence lightly would encourage similar-minded people to indulge in the commission of a similar offence, which would result in a complete breakdown of law and order.

13. The status report shows that seven FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and he was fined in one FIR. Thus, the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents while granting bail in Champa vs. State of H.P.: 2025:HHC:28899 and held that the criminal antecedents would disentitle an accused from the concession of bail, especially when the FIR registered against him related to the commission of a similar offence. This judgment was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Criminal) 19120 of 2025 titled Champa Devi vs State of H.P., decided on 27.11.2025. This position was reiterated in Shakti Sharma vs. State of H.P., 2026: HHC:33462. Therefore, the relevance of criminal antecedents cannot be ignored.

14. In the present case, the criminal antecedents and the petitioner’s past conduct, prima facie, support the submission of the prosecution that the petitioner would intimidate the informant in case of his release on bail.

15. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be released on bail; hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed.

16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) 15th October, 2026

Judge

(Ravinder)