Reshma Devi And Others vs State Of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail in FIR No. 32 of 2026, dated 29.03.2026, registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Briefly stated, it has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested based on a complaint made by Swarana Devi, the mother of the deceased Shirsha Chaudhary. As per the prosecution, Shirsha Chaudhary was married to the co-accused Tilak Raj in the year 2016. No child was born to them, and Shirsha Chaudhary had adopted the daughter of her sister-in-law, Ramna Devi. The accused, Tilak Raj, used to tell her that he would solemnise a second marriage. He would not permit the deceased to visit her parental home and harass her. Shirsha Chaudhary committed suicide by consuming poison. Her mother suspected that her suicide was due to the ill-treatment by the accused Tilak Raj and his sisters Sapna Devi and Reshma Devi (the present petitioners). The petitioners are innocent, and they are not involved in the commission of the offence. The police have completed the investigation. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Sawarna Devi, had made a complaint to the police, stating that her daughter, Shirsha Chaudhary, was married to Tilak Raj in the year 2016. Shirsha Chaudhary had adopted Naiyra, the daughter of her sister-in-law Ramna Devi. Shirsha Chaudhary used to tell the informant that Tilak Raj would solemnize second marriage because she (Shirsha Chaudhary) was not giving birth to any child. The petitioners, Aarti and Sapna, also used to harass her. She was found missing on 28.03.2026, and subsequently her dead body was found in the fields. She had also written a suicide note stating that she was committing suicide on her own, but the informant suspected that Shirsha Chaudhary had committed suicide because of the harassment. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The suicide note mentions that the deceased was committing suicide on her own and without the influence of any person. The police also recovered a diary containing the signatures and handwriting of Shirsha Chaudhary. These documents have been sent to RFSL, and the report is awaited. As per the statements of the witnesses, Tilak Raj and the petitioners used to taunt the deceased, and she committed suicide due to continuous harassment. No other FIR has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Dheeraj K Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Dheeraj K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. No specific allegations have been made against them, and the deceased had written a suicide note saying that no one was responsible for her suicide. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the investigation conducted by the police shows that the petitioner had harassed the deceased, and she committed suicide due to her continuous harassment. The allegations against the petitioners are grave. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

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

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 under 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.

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.]

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 oflences 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)

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 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)

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 oflence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)

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.

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 oflence;

(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;

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

(vi) likelihood of the oflence 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

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-à-vis the oflence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis supplied)

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:

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.

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...."

The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The suicide note stated to have been written by the deceased, specifically mentions that Shirsha Chaudhary had held herself responsible for the suicide. She stated that her mental condition was not proper, no one was responsible for the suicide and her husband, Tilak Raj, should take care of Naiyra after her death.

The contents of the suicide note prima facie do not show that anyone was responsible for the death of Shirsha Chaudhary. She had attributed the suicide to herself and had specifically stated that no one was responsible for her suicide. The fact that she had entrusted the custody of Naiyra, her adopted daughter, to her husband prima facie does not show that she was being harassed by her husband. Therefore, at this stage, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioners to the commission of the crime.

The police have recorded the statements of some persons to show the harassment of Shirsha Chaudhary; however, the best person to speak about the harassment is the deceased herself. When she had not attributed her cause of death to anyone but herself, prima facie, it is difficult to rely upon the statements recorded by the police to conclude that Shirsha Chaudhary had committed suicide due to harassment.

The status report mentions that the report from the FSL is awaited. The challan has been prepared, which is to be filed before the Court within the stipulated time. It shows that the investigation is complete. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody.

The petitioners asserted that they are permanent residents of District Kangra. This was not stated to be incorrect. It means that there are no chances of petitioners absconding and not facing the trial.

The petitioners asserted that they do not have any criminal antecedents. This fact was verified in the status report, in which it was mentioned that no FIR has been registered against the petitioners.

In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

(II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

(III) The petitioners shall 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 petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and

(V) The petitioners shall furnish their mobile numbers 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.

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.

The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.