Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 2.4.2026 vs State Of Hp on 8 April, 2026
2026:HHC:10815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 326 of 2026
Reserved on: 2.4.2026
Date of Decision: 08.4.2026.
Kulbhushan .... Petitioner
Versus
State of HP .... Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : M/s Rajesh Sharma and Aditya
Singh Thakur, Advocates.
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. 135 of 2024, registered at Police Station
Padhar, District Mandi, HP, for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506, read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. It has been asserted that the investigation has been
completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:10815
The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, and no
recovery is to be made from him. The transaction between the
parties is a commercial related to the lease of the JCB machine.
The complainant has also initiated proceedings under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, clearly showing that the
dispute relates to a financial transaction. The petitioner had
earlier filed a bail petition before this Court seeking pre-arrest
bail, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 294/2025 and was
dismissed on 11.03.2025. The petitioner filed a regular bail
petition, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Mandi. The petitioner has remained in custody for more
than six months, and his continued incarceration amounts to
pre-trial punishment. The petitioner would abide by the terms
and conditions that the Court may impose. The petitioner has
roots in society, and he is not likely to abscond if released on Bail.
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 had executed an agreement with the
petitioner regarding the sale of a JCB bearing Registration No.
HP-72-1529. The petitioner was to pay ₹1,00,000/- per month to
3
2026:HHC:10815
the informant; however, he failed to make the promised
payment. The cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured
because of insufficient funds. The informant called the petitioner
to demand the money, and the petitioner threatened to kill him.
The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The
investigation revealed that the petitioner had entered into an
agreement with the informant regarding the lease of the JCB
bearing Registration No. HP-72-1529 and had handed over the
cheques to the informant. The cheques were dishonoured on
presentation. FIR Nos. 88 of 2006, 64 of 2009, 24 of 2008, 81 of
2007, 58 of 2008, 259 of 2008, 94 of 2009, 73 of 2008, 116 of
2009 and 12 of 2012 have been registered against the petitioner.
The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 64 of 2009, and the other
cases are still pending. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He
would commit similar offences if released on bail. Hence, the
status report.
4. I have heard M/s Rajesh Sharma and Aditya Singh
Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma,
learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4
2026:HHC:10815
5. Mr Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated. The dispute between the parties relates to the lease of
the JCB and does not involve any criminality. The police have
filed the charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served
by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he 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 has criminal
antecedents and he is likely to commit a similar offence if
released on bail. Therefore, 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
5
2026:HHC:10815under 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 the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
6
2026:HHC:10815
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
7
2026:HHC:10815
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;
8
2026:HHC:10815
(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-Ã -vis the offence(s) alleged against an
accused.” (emphasis supplied)
9
2026:HHC:10815
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 mentions that the informant and
the petitioner had entered into an agreement related to the lease
of the JCB. The petitioner had issued the cheques in favour of the
informant, which were dishonoured on presentation. Prima facie,
these allegations show that the dispute between the parties
pertains to a commercial transaction of the lease of the JCB. The
police have removed Section 420 of the IPC after the
10
2026:HHC:10815
investigation and filed the charge-sheet for the commission of
an offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC, which shows
that the police had not found that the petitioner had a fraudulent
intention at the time of entering into the agreement. It is
doubtful that taking JCB on lease and non-payment of the lease
money would, prima facie, constitute an offence punishable
under Section 406 of the IPC.
12. The status report also mentions that the investigation
is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.
Therefore, there is a force in the submission made on behalf of
the petitioner that no fruitful purpose would be served by
detaining the petitioner in custody.
13. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal
antecedents and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of
his release on bail. This submission will not help the State. The
petitioner has remained in custody since 20.08.2025, and
considering the nature of the allegations made against him, his
further detention is not justified. It was laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may
11
2026:HHC:10815
not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of long
incarceration. It was observed:
“10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only
one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer
for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes
out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact
situation and period of incarceration, the presence of
antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may
be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds
of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may
not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court
may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the
accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending
upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail
notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.”
14. Consequently, 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
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following
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
12
2026:HHC:10815SHO 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
number or social media accounts, the same will be
intimated to the Police/Court within five days from
the date of the change.
15. 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.
16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan,
District Solan, HP and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on
the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
8th April, 2026 Digitally signed
(Chander) CHANDER by CHANDER
SHEKHAR
SHEKHAR Date: 2026.04.08
12:25:37 +0530
