Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lok vs State Of Hp on 17 September, 2024
2024:HHC:8702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024 a/w
Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1693, 1702,
1705, 1812, 1926 & 1927 of
2024.
Reserved on : 12.09.2024
Announced on: 17.09.2024
__________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024
Ram Lok …Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
__________________________________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024
Vikram Verma …Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
__________________________________________________________
3. Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024
Abhishek Verma …Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
__________________________________________________________
4. Cr.MP(M) No.1705 of 2024
Hira Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
__________________________________________________________
5. Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024
Vikal Kumar ….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
______________________________________________________
-2- 2024:HHC:8702
__________________________________________________________
6. Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of 2024
Arjun Verma ….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
______________________________________________________
7. Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of 2024
Surinder Thakur ….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel,
Advocate, through video
conferencing and Ms. Pooja
Thakur, Advocate, in person,
in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024.
Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate and
Mr. Harsh Shroal, Advocate, in
Cr.MP(M) Nos.1693, 1702 &
1705 of 2024.
Mr. Prem Singh Negi, Advocate,
in Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024.
Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate, in
Cr.MP(M) Nos.1926 & 1927 of
2024.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy
Advocate General, in all the
petitions.
For the complainant: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Anubhav
Chopra, Advocate.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-3- 2024:HHC:8702
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Seven bail petitioners, namely, Ram Lok
in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024, Vikram Verma in
Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024, Abhishek Verma in
Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024, Hira Singh in Cr.MP(M)
No.1705 of 2024, Vikal Kumar in Cr.MP(M) No.1812
of 2024, Arjun Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of 2024
and Surinder Thakur in Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of 2024,
have come up before this Court, seeking regular bail
under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’),
originating from FIR No.63 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024,
under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 307 & 34 of
the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC]
read with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as
‘SC&ST’], registered at Police Station Dhalli, District
Shimla, [H.P.].
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1666 OF
2024 [RAM LOK VS. STATE OF HP]
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel
-4- 2024:HHC:8702
Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate [who appeared
virtually] assisted by Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, is
that the bail petitioner [Ram Lok] belongs to Village
Kayali, but is working in Forest Department of the
State Government as a Forest Worker, in Forest
Beat Patgehar in District Shimla. It is averred that
bail petitioner additionally looks after the work
of adjoining Mundaghat Beat and he performed his
work diligently and resorted to action against people
indulging illegal felling due to which, the people
developed hatred and resentment against him.
2(i). It is averred that bail petitioner has been
falsely implicated, is innocent, as the complainant-
victim [Sanjay Kumar] had consumed liquor in
the afternoon on 08.05.2024 yet the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. It is further averred that one
Shri Roop Singh Kanwar alias Joginder Singh had
made a complaint against illicit felling on 09.05.2024
[Annexure P-1], but aforesaid complainant Roop Singh
Kanwar alias Joginder Singh himself resorted to
illicit felling against which bail petitioner had taken
-5- 2024:HHC:8702
against him, which is borne out from Annexure P-2.
2(ii). It is averred that no other FIR has been
registered against bail petitioner. The petition
further states that petitioner had filed an application
for bail before this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of
2024, which was dismissed by this Court on
05.07.2024, Annexure P-3 with directions to the
petitioner to surrender. Against the dismissal orders
the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.)
No(s).9347/2024, which was also dismissed on
22.07.2024, in following terms:-
” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In spite of the fact that the petitioner’s interim
bail was cancelled by the High Court he has not
surrendered as per the impugned order dated
05.07.2024. We are not inclined to entertain this
matter any further. The special leave petition is
dismissed.
We make it clear that the dismissal of the
special leave petition will not prejudice the
petitioner’s right to file a fresh application before
the High Court.”
While dismissing the SLP, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of SLP
will not prejudice the petitioner’s right to file a fresh
-6- 2024:HHC:8702
application before the High Court.
2(iii). The bail petitioner has furnished the
undertakings before this Court that he will furnish
personal bond and surety bond as may be directed by
this Court. It is further averred that bail petitioner
will not leave the jurisdiction of this Court and
shall appear in the trial without fail and will not
tamper with the evidence or cause any inducement,
threat or promise to any person or persons whatsoever
who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
In the background of above facts and the
orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
on 22.07.2024, the petitioner has prayed for bail
in instant case.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NOS.1693 OF
2024 [VIKRAM VERMA VS. STATE OF HP] AND
CR.MP(M) NO.1702 OF 2024 [ABHISHEK VERMA
VS. STATE OF HP.
3. Case set up by Learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, is that
the bail petitioners [Vikram Verma and Abhishek
Verma], is that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated and they have no connection with the
-7- 2024:HHC:8702
aforesaid offence. It is averred that there is no evidence
to connect the petitioners with alleged offence. It is
further averred that these petitioners were arrested
by Police on 15.05.2024 and were granted interim bail
by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 07.06.2024, but
in view of the observations made by this Court
on 05.07.2024 in case of Ram Lok [Supra], the bail
applications filed by these petitioners were finally
dismissed by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on
12.07.2024.
3(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners again filed
the bail applications [i.e. Cr.MP(M) Nos.1543 & 1545 of
2024] before this Court, which were also dismissed as
withdrawn on 16.07.2024 with liberty to file the same
at appropriate state. After the dismissal of the bail
petition(s), the petitioners [Vikram & Abhishek Verma]
surrendered on 20.07.2024. It is further averred that
the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the
petitioners have no previous history and now even
Challan stands filed before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioners
-8- 2024:HHC:8702
have prayed for bail by way of the instant bail
petitions.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1705 OF
2024 [HIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF HP]
4. Case set up by Learned Counsel, Mr. Manoj
Pathak, Advocate, is that the bail petitioner
[Hira Singh], is that the bail petitioner has been falsely
implicated and the allegations are misconceived and
concocted. It is stated that bail petitioner surrendered
before the Police on 13.05.2024 and he was initially
granted interim bail, but the same was rejected by
Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024.
4(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail
application [i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1544 of 2024] before this
Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on
16.07.2024. After dismissal of bail application, the
petitioner, Hira Singh was arrested by the police on
26.07.2024. It is further averred that the prosecution
story is highly doubtful and the petitioner has no
previous history and the Challan stands filed before
the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner
-9- 2024:HHC:8702
has prayed for bail by way of the instant bail petition.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1812 OF
2024 [VIKAL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HP]
5. Case set up by Learned Counsel Mr. Prem
Singh Negi, Advocate, is that the bail petitioner
[Vikal Kumar], has been falsely implicated and the
allegations are misconceived and concocted. It is
further averred that petitioner was arrested by Police
on 15.05.2024 and was granted interim bail, which
was rejected by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on
12.07.2024.
5(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail
application [i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1542 of 2024] before this
Court, which was dismissed on 16.07.2024. After
dismissal of bail application, the petitioner
surrendered before the Police on 20.07.2024. It is
further averred that the prosecution story is highly
doubtful and the petitioner has no previous history
and now the Challan stands presented before the
Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner
has prayed for bail in instant petition.
– 10 – 2024:HHC:8702
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NOS.1926 OF
2024 [ARJUN VERMA VS. STATE OF HP] AND
CR.MP(M) NO.1927 OF 2024 [SURINDER
THAKUR VS. STATE OF HP.
6. Case set up by Learned Counsel Mr. Rajiv
Sirkeck, Advocate, is that the bail petitioners
[Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur], is that the bail
petitioners have been falsely implicated and they have
no connection with the aforesaid offence. It is further
averred that they have been falsely implicated and
there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with
alleged offence. It is further averred that these
petitioners surrendered before Police on 11.05.2024
and 13.05.2024, whereafter they and were initially
granted interim bail by Learned Special Judge, Shimla,
but their bail applications were dismissed by Learned
Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024.
6(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners again filed
bail applications before this Court, which were also
dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2024. After the
dismissal of bail petitions the petitioners [Arjun Verma
& Surinder Thakur] surrendered before the Police on
20.07.2024, in the instant case. It is further averred
– 11 – 2024:HHC:8702
that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the
petitioners have no previous history and now even
Challan stands filed before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner
has prayed for bail in instant petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
7. Consequent upon the issuance of notice in
instant petitions, the State Authorities have furnished
separate Status Report(s) dated 24.08.2024 in cases of
Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh
and Vikal Kumar.
7(i). So far as the bail petitioners [Arjun Verma
and Surinder Thakur] are concerned, this Court
issued notice on 02.09.2024 with directions to the
State Authorities to file Status Report, whereafter
the Status Report dated 12.09.2024, was furnished,
which was taken on record and copy thereof was
supplied to learned counsel for the bail petitioners.
In this background, on receipt of Status
Report(s), as referred to above and with the consent of
Learned Counsel(s) for the parties, all seven bail
– 12 – 2024:HHC:8702
applications originating from same FIR i.e. FIR No.63
of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, are taken up for final
disposal together, at this stage.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN STATUS
REPORT(S):
8. State Authorities have furnished the Status
Reports dated 24.08.2024 [in cases of Ram Lok,
Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh and Vikal
Kumar] and likewise the Status Report dated
12.09.2024, has been filed in cases of Arjun Verma
and Surinder Thakur.
8(i). Status Report(s) filed by the State
Authorities, are pari materia, which indicate the
sequence of events, leading to the registration of FIR
No.63 of 2024 dated 09.05.2024 and the factual
matrix thereafter.
8(ii). Status Report(s) reveal that once Sanjay
Kumar, a resident of Village Patgehar Maluthi, lodged
a complaint under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on
09.05.2024, narrating that on 08.05.2024 at about
9:00 p.m., he received a call from Arjun Verma and
Ram Lok asking him to come to main road for
– 13 – 2024:HHC:8702
accompanying them to Village Patgehar. As soon as
the complainant came to the main road, wherefrom
Arjun and complainant-Sanjay Kumar went to the
house of Ram Lok, where, it was alleged that the
complainant [Sanjay Kumar] was abused and given
beatings by Ram Lok, Arjun Verma, Surinder Thakur
and Vikal Kumar. The complaint stated after giving
beatings at house of Ram Lok, he was then taken to a
place near the house of Hira Singh, where he was
again abused and again taken to Nullah [rivulet]. The
complainant [Sanjay Kumar] stated that near the
Nullah [rivulet] he was made to drink liquor; under
was poured on him, casteist remarks were made
against complainant by these persons. It was further
stated due to the beatings the complainant suffered
injuries on arms, right leg, back and face also.
8(iii). In view of the complaint, the FIR was
registered on 09.05.2024 under Sections 342, 323,
504, 506 & 34 of IPC and after receipt of MLC and
based on the opinion of Medical Expert(s) and the
injuries Sections 325 and 307 of IPC were added to
– 14 – 2024:HHC:8702
FIR along with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of
SC&ST Act.
8(iv). Consequent upon the registration of FIR,
the Police swung into action and started the
investigation. Thereafter, on 11.05.2024, petitioner-
accused Arjun Verma was arrested and bamboo stick
(Danda) was recovered at his instance.
8(v). On 13.05.2024, Hira Singh another
accused, before his arrest, applied for interim bail,
which was granted to him, which was ultimately
cancelled by Learned Special Judge on 12.07.2024
and then by this Court on 16.07.2024, as referred to
above, whereafter he was arrested on 26.07.2024.
8(vi). During investigation, on 15.05.2024, Police
arrested three other accused, Abhishek Verma, Vikram
Verma and Vikal Kumar and sought remand and
they were made to undergo medical examination.
8(vii). Investigation conducted by the police
reveals that petitioner-accused Ram Lok informed
other accused-petitioners, namely, Surinder Thakur,
Arjun Verma and Hira Singh that complainant
– 15 – 2024:HHC:8702
[Sanjay Kumar] had submitted complaint of illicit
felling being made by them.
8(viii). Status Report(s) indicates that criminal
antecedents of Arjun Verma and Abhishek Verma [bail
petitioner herein] are not up to mark, as both have
been involved in one FIR each i.e. FIR No.34 of 2024
and FIR No.110 of 2020, respectively. However, the
Status Report(s) further indicates that the Police has
completed the investigation and Challan has been
presented before the jurisdictional Court on
05.07.2024. Status Report(s) further indicates that
matter is now fixed for 13.09.2024, for Consideration
on Charge before the Learned Special Judge, Shimla.
In view of the averments made in Status
Report(s), Learned State Counsel has opposed the
prayer for bail to petitioners herein.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
COMPLAINANT:
9. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this
Court, in these proceedings, Mr. Ajay Kochhar,
Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anubhav
Chopra, Advocate, have put in appearance on behalf of
– 16 – 2024:HHC:8702
complainant [Sanjay Kumar]. Learned Senior Counsel
for the complainant, by and large supports the case of
prosecution and has opposed the bail on the ground,
that accusation is serious in nature and therefore, the
bail petitioners may not be enlarged on bail.
10. Heard. Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel,
Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Prem Singh Negi and
Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Learned Counsel(s) for the
petitioners, and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned State
Counsel as well as Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra,
Advocate, for the complainant.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
11. Before dealing with the present bail
petitions, application, it is necessary to have a recap of
provisions of Sections 307, 342, 323, 504, 506, 201,
34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(e), 3(2)(va) and Section
3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
[Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989:-
“307. Attempt to murder.–
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
– 17 – 2024:HHC:8702
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for
life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.–
When any person offending under this section is
under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may,
if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.–
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing
hurt.–
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace:-
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or knowing
it to be likely that such provocation will cause
him to break the public peace, or to commit any
other offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation :-
Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
– 18 – 2024:HHC:8702
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc :-
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property
by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with
death or 1 [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen
offender.–
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe
that an offence has been committed, causes any
evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment, or with that
intention gives any information respecting the
offence which he knows or believes to be false,
if a capital offence.–
shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to
have been committed is punishable with death be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.–
and if the offence is punishable with
[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years’
imprisonment.–
and if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for any term not extending to ten
years, shall be punished with imprisonment of
– 19 – 2024:HHC:8702
the description provided for the offence, for a term
which may extend to one-fourth part of the
longest term of the imprisonment provided for the
offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A,
knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide
the body with the intention of screening B from
punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either
description for seven years, and also to fine.
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-
(e) forcibly commits on a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any act, such as
removing clothes from the person, forcibly
tonsuring of head, removing moustaches,
painting face or body or any other similar act,
which is derogatory to human dignity;
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) punishable with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
against a person or property [knowing that
such person is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property
belongs to such member], shall be punishable
with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(va) commits any offence specified in the
Scheduled, against a person or property,
knowing that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for
such offences and shall also be liable to fine.”
12. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused
for pre-arrest or for post arrest bail-regular bail is to
be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed
– 20 – 2024:HHC:8702
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad
para-meters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
regulating grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram
Govind Upadhyay versus 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; which
has been reiterated in the case of 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
exists which lead to believe or point out towards
accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail
have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus
State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
12(i). While dealing with the case for grant of
bail, the three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has
held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh,
– 21 – 2024:HHC:8702
(2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para 25 that the nature of the
crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim
for bail.
12(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 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/
- 22 - 2024:HHC:8702
witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding
from proceedings;
(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 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.”
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM OF PETITIONERS:
13. Notwithstanding, the dismissal of earlier
Bail Applications of the petitioner, Ram Lok by this
Court on 05.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] and the orders
dated 22.07.2024 [Annexure P-4] passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9347 of 2024;
and the dismissal of bail applications of all other
– 23 – 2024:HHC:8702
petitioners i.e. Vikram Verma, Abhishek, Hira Singh,
Vikal Kumar, Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur,
by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024 and
withdrawal of subsequent Bail Applications from this
Court on 16.07.2024; yet, this Court, proceeds to
examine the claim of the petitioners for bail, in instant
petition(s) here-in-under.
14. After taking into account the entirety of
facts and circumstances, the statutory provisions, the
mandate of law as referred to above; and the material
on record, including the Status Report(s), this Court is
of the considered view, that all the bail petitioners
Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh,
Vikal Kumar, Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur, are
entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following
reasons:
14(i). Material on record, including the Status
Report dated 27.08.2024 [in case of Ram Lok, Vikram
Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh and Vikal Kumar]
and the Status Report dated 02.09.2024 [in case of
Arjun and Surinder Thakur] do not reveal any
– 24 – 2024:HHC:8702
reasonable grounds, at this stage, to believe the
accusation against the bail petitioners.
14(ii). The prosecution story leading to registration
of FIR indicates that the complainant [Sanjay Kumar]
was abused, was given beatings at the house of Ram
Lok; whereafter complainant was taken to a place near
the house of Hira Singh; wherefrom the complainant
was allegedly taken to a place near the Nullah (Gwai
Nullah) and was alleged that his clothes were removed;
urine was poured; caste related utterances-remarks
were made; whereafter he was left in the Nullah during
the night at 11:00 p.m. on 08.05.2024.
In the background of the prosecution story
the factum as to whether the complainant was abused;
or threatened; was given beatings and whether injuries
were so caused when, the complainant [Sanjay Kumar]
was himself drunk at relevant time. Further, factum as
to who was the aggressor relating to accusation under
Sections 307, 323, 506, including accusation under
Section 34 the common intention, revealing
community of purpose and common design or
– 25 – 2024:HHC:8702
pre-arranged plan has to be inferred but are
necessarily to be proved during trial, in view of the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and others versus
State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases
521, in the following terms:-
“26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator,
who had participated in the offence,
equally liable on the principle of joint
liability. For Section 34 to apply there
should be common intention between the
co-perpetrators, which means that there
should be community of purpose and
common design or pre-arranged plan.
However, this does not mean that
co-perpetrators should have engaged in any
discussion, agreement or valuation.
For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary
that the plan should be pre-arranged or
hatched for a considerable time before the
criminal act is performed. Common
intention can be formed just a minute
before the actual act happens. Common
intention is necessarily a psychological
fact as it requires prior meeting of
minds. In such cases, direct evidence
normally will not be available and in
most cases, whether or not there exists a
common intention has to be determined
by drawing inference from the facts
proved. This requires an inquiry into the
antecedents, conduct of the co-
participants or perpetrators at the time
and after the occurrence. The manner in
which the accused arrived, mounted the
attack, nature and type of injuries
inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or
acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators,
object and purpose behind the
occurrence or the attack etc. are all
– 26 – 2024:HHC:8702
relevant facts from which inference has
to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion
whether or not the ingredients of Section
34 IPC are satisfied. We must remember
that Section 34 IPC comes into operation
against the co-perpetrators because they
have not committed the principal or main
act, which is undertaken/performed or is
attributed to the main culprit or
perpetrator. Where an accused is the main
or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC
is not necessary as the said perpetrator is
himself individually liable for having caused
the injury/offence. A person is liable for his
own acts. Section 34 or the principle of
common intention is invoked to implicate
and fasten joint liability on other
co-participants.”
14(iii). Even, the accusation under Section 342 IPC
regarding wrongful confinement needs to be tested,
examined and proved during trial, when, the
complainant [Sanjay Kumar] and Arjun both
consumed liquor on 08.05.2024 and thereafter the
complainant went along with Arjun to the house of
Ram Lok, at Village Kayali, without any material on
record to show that he was taken despite resistance to
house of Ram Lok. In these circumstances, the
accusation of wrongful confinement, appears to be
highly improbable and which even otherwise, needs to
be tested, examined and proved during the trial.
- 27 - 2024:HHC:8702 14(iv). So far as, accusation under Section 3(1)(e) of
SC&ST Act, the fact as to whether petitioners have
indulged in forcibly removing clothes of complainant
[Sanjay Kumar] and the accusation under Sections
3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC& ST Act is borne out is a
matter to be examined, tested and proved during the
trial.
Taking into account the material on record
as borne out from this Court is of the considered view
that no reasonable grounds exists, to believe the
accusation against the bail petitioners, at this stage.
Moreover, once the complainant, Sanjay Kumar was
himself drunk on 08.05.2024, being the aggressor
then, the accusation is yet to be examined, tested and
proved during the trial.
NOTHING RECOVERABLE FROM BAIL
PETITIONERS:
15. The Status Reports filed by the State
Authorities do not indicate that any recovery is still
attributable to the petitioners in the aforesaid
incident.
– 28 – 2024:HHC:8702
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING TAMERING
WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:
16. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out any adversarial
circumstances nor placed any material on record, at
this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the
petitioners are likely to tamper with evidence or may
cause any inducement, threat or promise to any
person or persons acquainted with the facts of the
case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State
Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage by
imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING
OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO
THRAWTLING JUSTICE:
17. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out any adversarial
circumstances nor placed any material on record, at
this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the
petitioners may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice
in any manner. However, the apprehension if any, of
the State Authorities are taken care of, by imposing
– 29 – 2024:HHC:8702
stringent bail conditions as mandated herein, in the
instant case.
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING REPITITION
OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL:
18. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have not expressed any apprehension of repetition
of offence after release on bail, which, still is being
taken care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions in
later part of this bail order.
INCARCERATION AND TRIAL TO TAKE TIME-
ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION:
19. Learned Counsel(s) Mr. Ravinder Singh
Chandel, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Mr. Prem Singh Negi
and Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocates, submit that the FIR
in the instant cases was registered on 09.05.2024 and
petitioners have suffered custody for about three
months now [since 15.05.2024] till day and even
Investigation is complete and the Challan-Final Police
Report stands filed by the police before the Learned
Special Judge, Shimla on 05.07.2024 and the matter is
fixed for consideration on charge on 13.09.2024.
- 30 - 2024:HHC:8702 19(i). Since the bail petitioners herein, have
suffered incarceration for about three months now
and even the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the
considered view, that further detention of the
petitioners, shall certainly amount to implicating the
petitioners on mere accusation or conjectures at this
stage. The action of the State Authorities is dehors the
object of bail, which cannot be punitive nor
preventative. Prolonging imprisonment before conviction
has a substantial punitive content, which certainly
amounts to depriving or curtailing the personal liberty
of the petitioners enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
19(ii). While reiterating the principle that the
bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused
can be deprived of his personal liberty on mere
accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent
in eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined
the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan
– 31 – 2024:HHC:8702
Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1242, in following terms:-
“11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
while hearing a bail Application in a case of
an alleged economic offence, this court held
that the object of bail isneither punitive
nor preventative. It was observed as under:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times
that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at
his trial by reasonable amount of bail.
The object of bail is neither punitive
nor preventative. Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The
courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of bail, one
must not lose sight of the fact that
any imprisonment before conviction
has a substantialpunitive content
and it would be improper for any
court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been
convicted for it or not or to refuse bail
to an unconvicted person for the
purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of CrPC confer
discretionary jurisdiction oncriminal
courts to grant bail to the accused
pending trial or in appeal against
convictions; since the jurisdiction is
discretionary, it has to be exercised
with great care and caution by
balancing the valuable right of
liberty of an individual and the
– 32 – 2024:HHC:8702
interest of the society in general.In
our view, the reasoning adopted by the
learned District Judge, which is
affirmed by the High Court, in our
opinion, is a denial of the whole basis
of our system of law and normal rule
of bail system. It transcends respect
for the requirement that a man shall
be considered innocent until he is
found guilty. If such power is
recognised, then it may lead to
chaotic situation and would
jeopardise the personal liberty of an
individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated
that bail is the rule and committal to
jail an exception. It has also observed
that refusal of bail is a restriction on
the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.”
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2
SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail
application held that conditions for grant
of bail cannot become so onerous that
their existence itself is tantamount to
refusal of bail. This Court held as under:
“We are unable to appreciate even the
first order passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate imposing the onerous
condition that an accused at the FIR
stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2
lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid
it is a different matter. But the fact
that he was not able to pay that
amount and in default thereof he is to
languish in jail for more than 10
months now, is sufficient indication
that he was unable to make up the
amount. Can he be detained in custody
endlessly for his inability to pay the
amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If
the cheques issued by his surety were
dishonoured, the Court could perhaps
have taken it as a ground to suggest to
the payee of the cheques to resort to
the legal remedies provided by law.
– 33 – 2024:HHC:8702
Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied
with the conduct of the surety as for
his failure to raise funds for honouring
the cheques issued by him, the Court
could have directed the appellant to
substitute him with another surety.
But to keep him in prison for such a
long period, that too in a case where
bail would normally be granted for
the offences alleged, is not only hard
but improper. It must be remembered
that the Court has not even come to
the conclusion that the allegations
made in the FIR are true. That can be
decided only when the trial concludes,
if the case is charge-sheeted by the
police.”
19(iii). While dealing with the concept of bail
and personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra
and Another, held as under:-
“18 Criminals are not born out but made. The
human potential in everyone is good and
so, never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental
is often missed when dealing with
delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed,
every saint has a past and every sinner a
future. When a crime is committed, a
variety of factors is responsible for
making the offender commit the crime.
Those factors may be social and economic,
may be, the result of value erosion or
parental neglect; may be, because of the
stress of circumstances, or the manifestation
of temptations in a milieu of affluence
contrasted with indigence or other
privations.
– 34 – 2024:HHC:8702
19 If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any
other prosecuting agency should not
oppose the plea for bail on the ground
that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner
is still an accused; not a convict. The
over-arching postulate of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused is
presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly,
howsoever stringent the penal law may
be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which
the prosecuting agency as well as the Court
have proceeded, the right of the accused to
have a speedy trial could be said to have
been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of
the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds
and is hereby allowed. The impugned order
passed by the High Court is set aside.”
19(iv). While dealing with a matter relating to
prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial
and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and
while deprecating that bail is not to be withheld as
punishment so as to operate dehors the principle
that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate
– 35 – 2024:HHC:8702
Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No8781 of 2024,
decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under:-
“49. We find that, on account of a long period of
incarceration running for around 17 months
and the trial even not having been
commenced, the appellant has been
deprived of his right to speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to
speedy trial and the right to liberty are
sacrosanct rights. On denial of these
rights, the trial court as well as the High
Court ought to have given due weightage
to this factor.
52. The Court also reproduced the observations
made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra),
which read thus:
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may
remind the trial courts and the High
Courts of what came to be observed by
this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We
quote:
“What is often forgotten, and
therefore warrants reminder, is the
object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of
an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said
[R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
“I observe that in this case bail
was refused for the prisoner. It
cannot be too strongly impressed
on the, magistracy of the country
that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment, but that
the requirements as to bail
are merely to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at
trial””
53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the High
Courts have forgotten a very well-settled
principle of law that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. From our
– 36 – 2024:HHC:8702
experience, we can say that it appears that
the trial courts and the High Courts attempt
to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The
principle that bail is a rule and refusal is
an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non-grant of bail
even in straight forward open and shut
cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding to
the huge pendency. It is high time that the
trial courts and the High Courts should
recognize the principle that “bail is rule
and jail is exception”.
55. As observed by this Court in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the
objective to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an
appeal is to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having
deep roots in the society. There is no
possibility of him fleeing away from the
country and not being available for facing
the trial. In any case, conditions can be
imposed to address the concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the
learned ASG regarding the possibility of
tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to
be noted that the case largely depends on
documentary evidence which is already
seized by the prosecution. As such, there is
no possibility of tampering with the
evidence. Insofar as the concern with
regard to influencing the witnesses is
concerned, the said concern can be
addressed by imposing stringent
conditions upon the appellant.”
19(v). While adjudicating the claim for bail,
even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin
to NDPS Act], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No_______of 2024 [Arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No.10778 of 2024], titled as
– 37 – 2024:HHC:8702
Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of
Enforcement and connected matter has mandated
that the fundamental right of liberty provided under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to
the statutory restrictions, in following terms:-
“13. We had also reiterated the well-established
principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is
an exception”. We had further observed that
the fundamental right of liberty provided
under Article 21 of the Constitution is
superior to the statutory restrictions.”
Keeping in view the factual matrix that
no reasonable grounds exist, against the petitioners
coupled with the fact that the bail petitioners have
suffered incarceration for about three months now
[since 15.05.2024] and the Challan stands filed on
05.07.2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable
time, therefore, in these circumstances, further
detention shall certainly amount to depriving and
curtailing the personal liberty of petitioners on mere
accusation or conjectures, which are yet to be tested,
examined and proved during the trial in accordance
with law. Detention of petitioners can neither be
punitive nor preventative, so as to make the
– 38 – 2024:HHC:8702
petitioners to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial
of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail is
rule and jail is an exception”. Further, once the State
Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and
considerable time is yet to be taken for completion
of trial, then, in view of the mandate of law in the
cases of Guddan alias Roop Narayan,Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Manish Sisodia and
Kalvakuntla Kavitha [supra], the petitioners
deserves to be released on bail.
STATUS REPORT(S) INDICATING PAST
CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
20. Perusal of Status Report(s) indicates that
one FIR each, has been registered against the bail
petitioner Arjun Verma i.e. FIR No.34 of 2024 dated
20.03.2024 and one FIR against Abhishek Verma
i.e. FIR No.110 of 2020, dated 04.05.2018 and in view
of past criminal antecedents the bail has been
opposed by Learned State Counsel and complainant’s
counsel also.
20(i). So far as the accusation against bail
– 39 – 2024:HHC:8702
petitioner Arjun Verma in FIR No.34 of 2024, dated
20.03.2024 is concerned, the same cannot be the
basis for curtailing the personal liberty of the
petitioner, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
mandated in Prem Prakash versus Union of India
through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2270, pendency of another accusation
(FIR) cannot be the reason to deny the bail, in
following terms:-
“46. The Investigating Agency have also
referred to ECIR No. 4 as a criminal
antecedent. A reference was made to ECIR
No. 4 of 2022 pertaining to illegal Stone
Mining and related activities in Saheb
Ganj, Jharkhand, where the petitioner
was arrested on 25.08.2022 and the
prosecution complaint was filed on
16.09.2022. Insofar as the bail pertaining to
ECIR No. 4 of 2022, which is pending in this
Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 691 of 2023, at
the after notice stage, the merits of the bail
in that case will be independently examined.
Having examined the facts of the present
case arising out of ECIR No. 5 of 2023 and
in view of the findings recorded
hereinabove, we do not think that the
appellant can be denied bail based on the
pendency of the other matter. We say so
in the facts and circumstances of the present
case as we do not find any justification for
his continued detention. The appellant has
already been in custody for over one year.
The Trial is yet to commence. There is a
reference to one more ECIR which the
Investigating Agency refers to in their
– 40 – 2024:HHC:8702
counter, namely, ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 but
nothing is available from the record as to
whether any proceedings have been taken
against the appellant.
49. In the result, we pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is allowed and impugned
order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed
and set-aside.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to
release the appellant on bail in
connection with ED case No. ECIR
No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing bail
bonds for a sum of Rs.5 lakh with 2
sureties of the like amount.”
20(ii). In addition to this, so far as petitioner-
Abhishek Verma [in FIR No.110 of 2020, dated
04.05.2018], is concerned; the learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed on record, a copy of judgment
passed in Sessions Trial No.27-S/7 of 2020, whereby
the petitioner Abhishek Verma, stands acquitted on
29.08.2023.
Taking into account the facts and the
mandate of law, in case of Prem Prakash (supra), this
Court is of the considered view, that mere
registration of an Earlier FIR and the proceedings,
if any, cannot be made the basis for denying
bail, which shall amount to incarceration by way
– 41 – 2024:HHC:8702
of punishment on mere surmises-conjectures-
accusations, which are yet to undergo the test of
veracity and its examination and proof during the trial.
Thus, the previously lodged FIR, if any, cannot be the
sole basis to deny bail in instant case.
CONCLUSION:
21. For the reasons stated above and after
taking into account, the entirety of facts and
circumstances; and the material on record as borne
out from the Status Report(s); and the mandate of law,
as referred to above, all the petitions are allowed,
and the State Authorities are directed to release the
petitioners [Ram Lok in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024,
Vikram Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024, Abhishek
Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024, Hira Singh in
Cr.MP(M) No.1705 of 2024, Vikal Kumar in Cr.MP(M)
No.1812 of 2024, Arjun Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of
2024 and Surinder Thakur in Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of
2024], in FIR No.63 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, under
Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 307 & 34 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) &
– 42 – 2024:HHC:8702
3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at
Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, [H.P.]., subject to
the observance of the following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release
the bail petitioners, on furnishing their
personal bonds to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lac] each with
one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Learned Trial Court
concerned;
(ii) Petitioners shall abide by all other
conditions, as may be imposed by the
Learned Trial Court, if any, in view of this
order;
(iii) Petitioners shall neither involve themselves
nor shall abet the commission of any
offence hereinafter. Any involvement or
abetting shall entail the withdrawal of
concession in terms of this order;
(iv) Petitioners shall disclose their functional
E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp numbers and that of
their sureties to the Learned Trial Court ;
(v) Petitioners shall not jump over the bail and
also shall not leave the country without
prior information of the Court;
(vi) Petitioners shall join the trial without fail,
except on grounds permissible in law ;
(vii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the
witnesses or the evidence in any manner;
(viii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the
case or the witnesses;
(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the
conditions imposed hereinabove, shall
– 43 – 2024:HHC:8702
entail cancellation of bail automatically;
and
(x) State Authorities are free to move this
Court for seeking alteration/modification
of any condition(s), if necessary, in
the facts and circumstances, at any time
herein-after.
22. The observations made in this judgment
shall not be construed, in any manner, as an indictive
of findings, for or against either of the parties herein,
for the purpose of investigation or trial, which shall
proceed independently, in accordance with law.
23. Petitioners are permitted to produce/use
copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the
authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall
not insist for production of a certified copy, but if
required, may verify passing of order from Website of
the High Court.
The instant petitions are allowed and
all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 17, 2024
(Shivender)
Digitally signed by TARUN MAHAJAN
TARUN DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=
887aba774dfe8f4f3e95a41c7aa2abacb4ecee8f82efd8f56ec39f8e6b44
2b68, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=
3ff6ebe501e8d7c8d73d0e5a5294bacca3f198d7d66b105bbf50717967
3109f5, CN=TARUN MAHAJAN
MAHAJAN Reason: I am the author of this document
Location: 12345678
Date: 2024.09.18 13:30:05+05’30’
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0