Anil Sharma Vs State of Hp

1 2025:HHC:38507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	Cr. MP(M) No.: 2588 of 2025
	Reservedon : 14.11.2025 Decided on :17.11.2025
Anil Sharma	…Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.	…Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Applicant	:	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the respondent	:	Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. AGs
		with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge

¶9

Applicant Anil Sharma has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 195 of 2025, dated

¶10

29.8.2025, registered under Section 8 of the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

22025:HHC:38507

¶12

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

¶13

The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.

¶14

According to the applicant, he has tried his luck by moving application for bail, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, twice, however, the same has been dismissed, vide orders dated 27.9.2025 and 16.10.2025.

¶15

Relief of bail has been sought on the ground that he has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime in question.

¶16

According to the applicant, investigation of

¶17

the present case is also stated to be complete, and there is nothing more to be recovered from him, or at his instance.

¶18

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the applicant to release him on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

¶19

32025:HHC:38507

¶20

When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 29.8.2025, a complaint was received from Vishal Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., disclosing therein the following facts:

¶21

“Confidential No. Civil Judge/ JMFC/PNT/20252266 Office of the Civil Judge-cum-JMFC. Paonta Sahib. District Sirmaur, HP Dated Paonta Sahib the 28th day of August, 2025 To Sub Divisional Police Officer, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P Sub: Submission for registration of FIR, Sir, It is hereby submitted that yesterday on 27 08.2025 at about 04 40 PM, I had received some offensive messages on WhatsApp on my WhatsApp No. 70186 51127 from a No +351961627258 where in some unknown person had tried to bribe me to favour a person named Uma Rani Sharma in some case and have even leveled false accusation against me for favouring her in the case (Printout of screenshots attached) It is further pertinent to submit that before these messages. I had received a WhatsApp call from another unknown number, which is 98787 78285 and that call was not attended by me, but it is my strong suspicion that both the above mentioned numbers belongs to same person. So, I hereby request you to kindly register a criminal case against the sender of above described offensive

¶22

42025:HHC:38507

¶23

messages and to investigate the matter as per law Thanking you. Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Vishal Vishal Tiwari) Civil Judge-cum-JMFC Court No. 2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur HP. Endst No. Civil Judge/JMFC/PNT/2025 Dated Copies forwarded to 1 Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh through Worthy Registrar General Hon'ble High Court of HP, Shimla. HP 2. Ld. District and Sessions Judge. Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P.

¶24

Sd/- Vishal Civil Judge-cum-JMFC Court No 2. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.”

¶25

7.1 On the basis of above facts, Police registered

¶26

the FIR and investigation was conducted by SDPO, Paonta Sahib.

¶27

7.2 During investigation, whatsapp call details of mobile phone number 351961627258 was obtained. As per further investigation, the complainant received a whatsapp call from an unknown number 9878778285. The said call was not picked up by the complainant. The CDR/Consumer Application Form of the said mobile was obtained, and the same was found to be issued in the name of Anil Sharma (applicant).

¶28

52025:HHC:38507

¶29

On 29.7.2025, location of the aforesaid mobile number

¶30

was found to be at Delhi.

¶31

7.3 The country I.D. of the mobile number, from which, whatsapp call was made, was found to be of Portugal, upon which, a request was made to the Superintendent of Police to issue the look out circular.

¶32

7.4 On 23.9.2025, the SDPO received a secret information about the fact that applicant was standing in Paonta Sahib market, near Omjees Bar, upon which, he was nabbed and brought to the Police Station.

¶33

7.5 During investigation, he has disclosed that in the year 2019, he alongwith his wife and children had gone to Portugal, for which, he had borrowed the amount from the relatives of his wife Uma Rani and from his friends. In Portugal, relations of applicant and his wife became strained. Due to this fact, they had parted their ways, by way of Decree of Divorce. Thereafter, his wife left the matrimonial home, alongwith the children. Thereafter, he came back to

¶34

62025:HHC:38507

¶35

India. He was having temporary residence in Portugal, as such, he oftenly used to visit that country. When, he came back, his relatives started demanding money from him. Applicant and his wife had borrowed 7-8 lacs from one Sanjeev Kumar Vaid, R/o Paonta Sahib. In lieu of that, applicant and his wife had issued the cheques, upon which, his brother-in-law Sanjeev and one Mahinder had filed two cases of cheque bounce, against his wife, Uma Rani.

¶36

7.6 He has disclosed that he has tried to contact the complainant regarding these cases. On 27.8.2025, when he made a whatsapp call to the complainant, but it was not picked up, then, he has made whatsapp message to the complainant. On 29.7.2025, he had returned back to Portugal and came back to India on 19.9.2025.

¶37

7.7 The applicant is stated to have constructed the house, after obtaining loan in the name of his wife Uma Rani, but, on account of non-payment of the loan, the said house was acquired by the bank. His

¶38

72025:HHC:38507

¶39

ancestral house is stated to have been sold by his father. Due to this fact, he has started residing with his sister and brother-in-law, since, 2022 in Ekta Colony, Paonta Sahib.

¶40

7.8 On the basis of above facts, accused was arrested on 23.9.2025. He was medico-legally examined and produced before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, from where, he was remanded to Police custody, till 28.9.2025.

¶41

7.9 During police custody, mobile phone, which was given to him by one Anuj, on 23.9.2025, was also taken into possession. In the said mobile, sim card No. 9878778285 was found and IMEI numbers were found to be 352053267778788 and 353806337778784. In the gallery of mobile phone, two screen shots were found, which are whatsapp messages, forwarded to the complainant.

¶42

7.10 In the whatsapp of the applicant, from 10.8.2025 to 27.8.2025, whatsapp call was made to the Presiding Officer and whatsapp chat was made to

¶43

82025:HHC:38507

¶44

one Rakesh Kumar, Process-Server, working in the

¶45

Court. In the said whatsapp chat, reference of the Presiding Officer’s mobile phone number was also found. Print-outs of the same were taken. The passport, produced by the brother-in-law of the applicant was also taken into possession.

¶46

7.11 During investigation, applicant also disclosed that mobile number of the complainant was given to him by Rakesh Kumar, working as ProcessServer in the Court of JMFC-2, Paonta sahib.

¶47

7.12 As per the passport, on 28.7.2025, he had gone abroad and came back to India on 19.9.2025. From this fact, it has been found that whatsapp message, which was made to complainant was forwarded from foreign country.

¶48

7.13 It has been submitted in the status report that the applicant is not having permanent abode, as his house at Ludhiana was acquired by the Bank, and his ancestral house was sold by his father, and

¶49

92025:HHC:38507

¶50

applicant is residing with his sister and brother-in-law at Paonta Sahib.

¶51

7.14 During investigation, applicant has

¶52

disclosed that in the year 2024, he has lent a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to Rakesh Kumar, Process-Server. Rakesh Kumar had returned a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to him, and rest of the amount, he was returning in installments.

¶53

7.15 The applicant has further disclosed during investigation that he was interested to get his wife declared as Proclaimed Offender, in the case, which was pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, so that when she comes back to India, she may not go back abroad. Due to this reason, he has obtained the mobile phone number of the complainant from Rakesh Kumar. In order to get the favour, the applicant has developed acquaintance with Rakesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar has also assured him to help him, as he was having the knowledge about the cases of his wife.

¶54

102025:HHC:38507

¶55

7.16 Accused Rakesh Kumar was arrested on

¶56

26.9.2025. He was produced before the Court on 27.9.2025. Thereafter, he was released on bail.

¶57

7.17 It is the further case of the Police that report from the SFSL, qua mobile phones of applicant and complainant, is yet to be received. Correspondence to obtain the bank account statement of the applicant, has been made.

¶58

7.18 In order to ascertain the antecedents of the applicant, correspondences have been made. However, no response has been received.

¶59

7.19 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶60

8. Considering the fact that the co-accused of applicant has already been released on bail, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too for indefinite period.

¶61

9. The status report is totally silent about the fact whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is

¶62

112025:HHC:38507

¶63

required or not?. The allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant are, although serious, but, the same would be proved during the trial.

¶64

10. Commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant will take sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.

¶65

11 So far as the stand of the Police qua the fact that corrospondence to ascertain the antecedents has been made and no response has been received, is concerned, sufficient time has already been granted to the Police, as the applicant was arrested on 23.9.2025.

¶66

On this ground, relief, for which, the applicant is otherwise entitled for, cannot be declined to him.

¶67

12. So far as the objections, with regard to the fact that applicant is not having any permanent abode, is concerned, on this ground also, relief of bail cannot be declined to him, as for those apprehensions,

¶68

122025:HHC:38507

¶69

reasonable conditions can be imposed upon the applicant.

¶70

13. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶71

14. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of Case FIR No. 195 of 2025, dated 29.8.2025, registered under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/any Judicial Magistrate, stationed at Nahan.

¶72

14. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-

¶73

a) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application;

¶74

b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the

¶75

132025:HHC:38507

¶76

investigation of the case, in any manner, whatsoever;

¶77

c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and

¶78

d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶79

e) Applicant shall furnish the affidavit alongwith the copy of the passport to the learned trial Court with a further direction to intimate the trial Court about the change of his address, within one month of change thereof.

¶80

15. Any of the observations, made herein above,

¶81

shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶82

16. It is made clear that the respondent-State is

¶83

at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.

¶84

17. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan, through e-mail, with a direction

¶85

142025:HHC:38507

¶86

to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶87

18. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Nahan. The Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶88

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶89

November 17, 2025

¶90

Kalpana

¶91

Digitally signed KALPANA by KALPANADate: 2025.11.17 14:11:24 +0000

Anil Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Minhas Vs State of Hp

Anant Ram Vs State of Hp

Sahil Rana Vs State of Hp

Birender Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Aarif

Karan Nandwani Vs State of Hp and Anr.