Deepak Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Apr 2025CRMPM/505/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-compliance with Court directions on status reports; annexure of remand orders and prior status reports in bail proceedings; affidavit demanded from all Superintendents of Police, Himachal Pradesh; Principal Secretary (Home) directions; Cr.MP(M); Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P. (Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024, order dated 18.12.2024); Raju Sharma alias Lambhu v. State of H.P. (Cr.MP(M) No.638 of 2026); dismissal of application by Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, Kangra on 14.08.2024; compliance affidavit found deficient; matter listed after four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compliance affidavits called for from all Superintendents of Police in the State of Himachal Pradesh regarding the directions dated 18.12.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024 (Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P.), as reiterated in this case; matter listed after four weeks.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the State has complied with the directions issued on 18.12.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024 (Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P.) and reiterated on 04.04.2025 in the present case, requiring all material facts found in investigation to be mentioned in status reports and copies of previously filed remand orders/status reports to be annexed in bail proceedings. +1 more

¶¶5

Court's answer

The status report filed in the matter was totally silent about the fact that the applicant had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., where his application was dismissed on 14.08.2024.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

Although a compliance affidavit had been filed in this case, its averments are far away from the hard reality, i.e., the claimed compliance does not reflect the actual position.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Affidavits regarding compliance of the directions issued on 18.12.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024 (Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P.), as reiterated in this case, are to be called for from all the Superintendents of Police in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and the matter is to be listed after four weeks.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compliance proceedings in Cr.MP(M) No.505 of 2025 (Deepak Kumar v. State of H.P.). The Court found continued non-compliance with its directions dated 18.12.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024, Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P. (requiring Superintendents of Police and Investigating Officers, through the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of H.P., to mention all material facts found in investigation in status reports filed during remand or bail proceedings, and to annex copies of previously filed remand orders/status reports at bail hearings), as reiterated by order dated 04.04.2025 in the present case. The status report filed was totally silent about the applicant's application having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on 14.08.2024, and the compliance affidavit filed by the State was found to be far removed from the hard reality. The Court accordingly directed that affidavits regarding compliance be called for from all Superintendents of Police in the State of Himachal Pradesh and listed the matter after four weeks.

¶1

Deepak Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Anr.

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No.505 of 2025

¶3

04.05.2026 Present:

¶4

Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

¶5

Today, the case has been listed for consideration. As pointed out, by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the directions issued by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024, titled as Naresh Kumar versus State of H.P., as reiterated, in this case, i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.505 of 2025, have not been complied with, by the State.

¶6

In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the status report filed in Cr.MP(M) No.638 of 2026, titled as Raju Sharma alias Lambhu versus State of H.P. and pointed out that the status report has not been annexed with the application for remand, as well as, copy of the status report filed before the Court, where, the applicant in the said case, had approached for bail, has not been annexed.

¶7

As per the applicant, he has approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., where, his application was dismissed on 14.08.2024.

¶8

Status report, which has been filed, is totally silent about the said fact.

¶9

This Court, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024, titled as Naresh Kumar versus State of H.P. on 18.12.2024, has issued certain directions. Relevant paragraph25 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-.

¶10

“25 Before parting with this Order, this Court is of the view that, it is high time for this Court to direct the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all the Superintendents of Police in the State, with a further direction to circulate the same amongst all the Investigating Officers, to mention all material facts, found in the investigation, in the status report(s), filed in the Court either during remand or in the bail application, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class/learned Additional Sessions Judge/learned Sessions Judge. In order to achieve the said goal, the Investigating Officer of the case is directed to annex the copy of the remand order/status report, filed in the Court previously, at the time of hearing of bail application, so that clear picture could be brought to the notice of the Court, while deciding the question of releasing on bail.”

¶11

These directions were reiterated, again in this case,

¶12

vide order dated 04.04.2025, by issuing the following directions. Relevant paragraph-26 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:-

¶13

“26. Before parting with the order, it is high time for this Court to seek compliance of the directions, issued by this Court, vide order dated 18.12.2024, in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 2717 of 2024, titled as, ‘Naresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., by directing the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of H.P. to file an

¶14

affidavit, within six week, with regard to compliance of those directions, so that the unpleasant situation, as has arisen in this case, may not happen, in any other case.”

¶15

Although, the compliance affidavit has been filed,

¶16

in this case, however, averments of the said compliance affidavit are far away from the hard reality.

¶17

In such situation, affidavit with regard to compliance of the directions of this Court, issued in Cr.MP(M) No.2717 of 2024, titled as Naresh Kumar versus State of H.P., dated 18.12.2024, as reiterated in this case, be called for, from all the Superintendents of Police in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶18

List after four weeks.

¶19

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶20

May 04, 2026 (subhash)

Deepak Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs Naval Kishore

Akhil Rana Vs State of Hp

Bhagwat Prasad Vs Deepak Kumar

Jagmohan Jinta Vs Manju Jinta

Jad Ram Vs State of H.P.

Munish Kumar Vs State of Hp