Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 23.02.2026 vs Of on 26 February, 2026
1 2026:HHC:4334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P(M) No.2642 of 2025
Reserved on: 23.02.2026
.
Decided on : 26.02.2026
Balwinder Singh ....... Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior
Advocate with Mr Karanveer
Singh, 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 F.I.R No. 28/25, dated 08.09.2025,
registered at Police Station, Sansarpur Terrace, District Kangra,
H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section
303(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 (BNS) and Sections 41
and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
informant Yudhvir found 14 trees of different species to have
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:4334
been cut by some person on 23.08.2025. The police registered
the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the
petitioner and the co-accused. There is no material against the
.
petitioner. The learned Magistrate granted bail to the co-
accused. The majority of 28-29 cases registered against the
petitioner have been decided in his favour. The investigation is
of
complete. The petitioner is in judicial custody. No fruitful
purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.
rt
The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the
Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant, Yudhvir, found 14 Khair trees to
have been cut in UPF Jakhuni West. Out of 14 Khair trees 09
scants were taken by the accused and 5 scants were lying on the
spot. The police registered the FIR and checked the CCTV
footage. A Bolero Neo, bearing registration No. HP-88A-2879
and a Tempo 407 bearing registration No. PB07W1288 were
found to be going towards the spot on the intervening night of
23.08.2025 and 24.08.2025 at about 1:00 AM. These vehicles
returned at about 3:50 AM. The police checked the mobile data
and found that Mobile No XXXX333 issued in the name of Anil
Kumar and Mobile No xxxx204 issued in the name of Balwinder
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:4334
were in touch with each other. The police apprehended
Balwinder @ Bunty, who revealed that he and other persons had
cut the trees and taken the wood in the vehicles. The police
.
arrested the other persons and recovered the vehicles.
Balwinder made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery
of two saws. The other co-accused also made a disclosure
of
statement. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on
17.11.2025 after the completion of the investigation. Om
rt
Parkash, Rohit and Yadvender are yet to be arrested. The report
from RFSL Mandi is awaited. 30 FIR’s were registered against
the petitioner, out of which 8 are pending before the Court.
Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he
was falsely implicated. The co-accused have already been
released on bail. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no
fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:4334
custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions
that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present
petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
.
6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner
was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier, and
of
he would indulge in the commission of similar offences if
released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be
dismissed.
rt
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::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:4334antecedents 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)of
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
rt
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [NeeruYadav 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)
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
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:4334
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 empoweredof
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
rt
facilitate the administration of justice, secure the
presence of the accused and ensure that the libertyof 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 theconditions which can legitimately be imposed
both in the context of bail and anticipatory
bail.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15
SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of thediscretion 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::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:4334
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 notfor the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to
a court to grant or refuse the prayer for
anticipatory bail, depending on the facts andof
circumstances of the particular case. The factors
to be taken into consideration while considering
an application for bail are the nature of the
rt 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 accusedat the time of trial or the likelihood of his
abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of
the accused; and the circumstances which arepeculiar or the accused and larger interest of the
public or the State and similar otherconsiderations. A criminal court, exercising
jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, isnot expected to act as a recovery agent to realise
the dues of the complainant, and that too,
without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)
10. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition is to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:4334
12. The status report shows that the petitioner made a
disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of saws with
which the trees were cut. He also named the co-accused who
.
made the disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the
articles connected to the commission of the crime. Therefore,
prima-facie there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner
of
to the commission of the crime.
13. The offences stated to have been committed by the
rt
petitioner are triable by a Magistrate and are not grave enoughto justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. The
petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025 and has remained in
custody for about 5 months.
14. The status report also shows that the charge sheet
has been filed before the Court, and the learned Trial Court has
taken cognisance of the same. This means that the investigation
is complete. No reason has been assigned in the status report as
to why the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is required.
15. It was submitted that the petitioner was involved in
the commission of similar offences in the past. 30 FIRs were
registered against him, many of which are pending, and he was
convicted in some of the FIRs. Therefore, there is possibility of
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:4334the petitioner indulging in the commission of the crime. This
submission will not help the prosecution. The petitioner has
remained in custody for about 5 months, and the bail cannot be
.
withheld as a punishment to the petitioner. Therefore, the
criminal antecedents cannot be used to detain the petitioner in
custody, considering the nature of the offences and the period
of
of detention.
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
rt
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject tohis 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 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::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:4334abide 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.
17. 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.
of
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai
rt
District and Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, H.P.
and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. 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
26th February, 2026
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on – 26/02/2026 20:32:49 :::CIS
