Avtar Singh Vs State of Hp

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M) Nos.42 & 100 of 2026 Decided on: 17.03.2026

__________________________ 1.Cr.MP(M) No.42 of 2026	__________________________________
Avtar Singh	………..Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	……….Respondent
__________________________ 2.Cr.MP(M) No.100 of 202	__________________________________ 6
Ajay Mahajan	………..Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh	……….Respondent
__________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sande Whether approved for repor	__________________________________ ep Sharma, Judge. ting?¹
For the Petitioner(s) :	Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram
	Sharma, Mr. Sahil Dixit & Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocates, for their respective parties.
For the Respondent(s) :	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.

¶5

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶6

2

¶7

Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate, for the complainant in Cr.MP(M) No.42 of 2026.

¶8

SI Satish Kumar, PS SV & ACB, Chamba, HP present in person.

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

Sequel to orders dated 06.01.2026 and

¶11

20.01.2026, whereby this Court enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim bail in case FIR No.1/2025 dated 17.03.2025 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at PS SV & ACB, Chamba, HP, respondent/State has filed status report and SI Satish Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

¶12

Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that complainant namely Smt. Hem Lata, W/o Sh. D.K. Sharda, R/o Sharda Cottage, Rajmahal road, Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, alleging therein that though on 19.10.2020, one sale deed No.330 was executed,

¶13

3

¶14

thereby selling Khasra No.1169 measuring 00-02-24 Hectares, but on 11.11.2014, co-accused namely Hans Raj got mutation of Khasra No.1169 (224 Sq. metres) and Khasra No.1366/1172 (396 Sq. metres), total measuring 00-06-20 Hectares attested in his name on the basis of forged sale deed. Complainant alleged that co-accused Hansraj in connivance with the revenue officials forged the record and defrauded the actual owner of Khasra No.1366/1172, as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them. In aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioners.

¶15

Vide orders dated 06.01.2026 and 20.01.2026, this Court, enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim bail subject to condition that they shall join investigation. Since bail-petitioners have already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from them, prayer has been made on their behalf for confirmation of interim bail granted vide orders dated 06.01.2026 and 20.01.2026.

¶16

4

¶17

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating officer, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bailpetitioners, but sale deed, on the basis of which co-accused Hansraj fraudulently got mutation entered in his favour, has not been provided by him, as a result thereof, Investigating Agency is unable to file challan in the competent Court of law. He states that otherwise also, taking note gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail-petitioners, they do not deserve any leniency, rather need to be dealt with severely. Mr. Kahol, further contends that at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioners, as such, their custodial interrogation is not required and they can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available for investigation and trial, as and when called by the Investigating Agency.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that

¶19

5

¶20

complainant Hem Lata, who is an immediate neighbour of coaccused Hansraj, lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau, alleging therein that though vide sale deed No.330 dated 19.10.2010, above named Hansraj had purchased Khasra No.1169 measuring 00-02-24 Hectares, but he fraudulently, on the basis of forged sale deed, got the mutation of Khasra Nos. 1169, 1366/1172, measuring 00-0620 Hectares, entered in the revenue records. During investigation, it transpired that persons namely Ajay, Naveen and Namrata had executed GPA in favour of Avtar Singh, thereby authorizing him to sell their land to co-accused Hansraj comprised in Khasra No.1169. Though persons namely Naveen and Ajay Mahajan got their GPA cancelled, but GPA executed in favour of Avtar Singh by Namrata was not withdrawn, as a result thereof, above named person Avtar Singh sold land of other persons to Hansraj. Though in terms of sale deed, as detailed hereinabove, mutation was attested in the name of the Hansraj qua Khasra Nos. 1169,

¶21

6

¶22

1366/1172, total measuring 00-06-20 Hectares, but after lodging of FIR detailed hereinabove, same has been cancelled.

¶23

Investigation in the case is complete, except for the recovery of one manipulated sale deed allegedly used by Hans Raj for getting the mutation in respect of Khasra Nos. 1169 and 1366/1172, measuring 00-06-20 hectares, attested in his name. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, states that investigation qua bailpetitioners is complete, but on account of certain recoveries to be effected from co-accused Hansraj, Investigating Agency is unable to file the challan in the competent Court of law. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioners, coupled with the fact that guilt, if any, of the bail-petitioners is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence in the competent Court of law, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail-petitioners, who otherwise

¶24

7

¶25

pursuant to orders passed by this Court have already joined investigation. This is none of the case of the prosecution that bail-petitioners are not cooperating with the Investigating Agency, as far as recovery of alleged manipulated sale deed is concerned, Investigating Agency has already effected search of the house of co-accused Hansraj. Once document is not in possession of the co-accused Hansraj, as such, he cannot be compelled to produce the same. Moreover, this Court finds that sale deed dated 19.10.2010 relating to Khasra No.1169, measuring 00-02-24 Hectares already stands recovered by the Investigating Agency.

¶26

By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

¶27

8

¶28

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

¶29

No.227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶30

A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do

¶31

9

¶32

any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶33

There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶34

While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶35

10

¶36

An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶37

To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

¶38

Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the

¶39

attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the

¶40

11

¶41

accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶42

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:-

¶43

“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 can be 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. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of

¶44

12

¶45

bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive 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 propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

¶46

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC

¶47

496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in

¶48

mind, while deciding petition for bail:

¶49

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶50

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶51

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶52

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶53

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶54

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶55

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

¶56

13

¶57

Consequently, in view of the above, orders dated

¶58

06.01.2026 and 20.01.2026 passed by this Court, are made absolute, with following conditions:-

¶59

a. they shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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 appropriate application;

¶60

b. they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their

¶64

liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them,

¶65

the Investigating Agency shall be free to move to this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶66

14

¶67

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be

¶68

construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone.

¶69

The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

¶70

March 17, 2026

¶71

(sunil)

¶72

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Avtar Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmla Rana Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs Shanta Kumar and Others

H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs Raj Kumar

Thakar Singh Bharmouri Vs State of Hp and Others

Pradeep Kumar Thakur Vs State of Hp

Parul Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another