Richa Sharma And Others vs State Of H.P And Others

Virender Singh, Judge

This order of mine shall dispose of both the above titled bail applications, which have been filed by the applicants, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), in case FIR No. 111/2025, dated 25.7.2025, registered under Secti ns 126(2), 115(2), 238 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’), with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., by surrendering themselves to the custody of the Court, on 10.9.2025.

By surrendering themselves to the custody of the Court, they have sought their release on bail, in the aforesaid FIR.

According to the applicants, they are innocent persons, and have falsely been implicated, in the present case.

As per the applicants, they are residents of Ashiana-II, Dhalli, Shimla, H.P., a housing project, which has been developed for allotment of the families, falling in Basic Service to Urban Poor Scheme. A flat was also allotted to the complainant party. Thereafter, applicant Dharmender Sharma is stated to have applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding the employment of c mplainant Santosh and her son Rahul, upon which, information has been supplied that Santosh Kumari is appointed as Peon in erstwhile H.P. State Social Welfare Board, on part-time basis, from 5.7.1993, and became Peon on daily wages on 27. 7.2004, and then, regularized as Peon, on 10. 12.2013, and drawing salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4900-10680+1400.

It has further been pleaded that Rahul is also stated to be working as Class-IV, on daily wages, earning a sum of Rs. 19,100/- per month.

As per the further case of the applicants, applicant Richa Sharma, filed a complaint before the Municipal Corporation, Shimla to take appropriate action, with respect to the allotment o house, under BSUP scheme in favour of the c mplainant party, on the basis of said information, upon which, Municipal Corporation, Shimla had taken action against the complainant, and iss ed notice for cancellation of the allotment of the h use to the complainant, under the BSUP scheme. Due to this fact, complainant Santosh, alongwith er son Rahul and three daughters, namely Anita, Meenakshi and Nisha and her son in law Amritpal Oberai came out of their house and started hurling abuses to the applicants. When, the applicants and other family members came out to inquire, as to why they are hurling abuses, they saw the complainant party with hockey and sticks, in their hands. Daughter of applicant Dharmender Sharma clicked photographs of the complainant party, having sticks in their hands.

It is the further case of the applicants that complainant and her family members started beating applicant Dharmender Sharma, his wife and his elder daughter, with sticks, hockeys, kicks and ist blows. Due to the sudden attack, upon applicant Dharmender Sharma and his family members, they sustained injuries and applicants lodged FIR against the complainant party.

As such, FIR No. 112, dated 25.7.2025 is stated to have been lodged by the applicants against the complainant-party, whereas, FIR No. 111 of 2025, dated 25.7.2025, is stated to have been registered by the complainant party, against the applicants.

In the FIR in question, as per the case of the applicants, provisions of SC & ST Act were added by the Police, on the basis of supplementary statement, made by the complainant, which is stated to be an afterthought, in order to implicate the applicants, in the stringent provisions of SC & ST Act.

The applicants have turned the FIR, registered against them, as false and frivolous, and according to them, they have no concern whatsoever with the crime in question.

Apart from this, Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, the applicants a e o dered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

On the basis of above facts, applicants have sought the relief, as claimed, in the present bail applications.

While issuing notices, on 10.9.2025, the respondent-State was directed to file status report. Consequently, respondent-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 25.7.2025, complainant Santosh made a complaint to the Police, mentioning therein, that she, alongwith her son Rahul and daughter Minakshi is residing in Ashiana-II, Dhalli. On 25.7.2025, when, she came back alongwith her son from Hospital, then, employees of Municipal Corporation directed her to remove flower pots. When, complainant, alongwith her daughter, were removing the flower pots, then, applicant Dharmender Sharma, who, as per the complainant, was under the influence of liquor, came out from his house and started hurling abuses on them. Thereafter, he brought stick from his house and inflicted inju ies to the complainant and her daughters. When, the complainant and her daughters tried to go to their rooms, then, they were prevented from entering their room, by applicant Dharmender Sharma. Thereafter, wife of applicant Dharmender Sharma, namely Narmada Sharma, and their daughters, Poonam Sharma and Richa Sharma also joined them, and all of them had beaten the complainant and her daughters. The complainant party was saved by Amrit Pal Singh, who took them to Police station. Complainant prayed that the complainant party be medico legally examined and action be taken against the applicants, upon which, FIR in question, was registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

13.1 On 25.7.2025, medico legal examination of the injured was got conducted and MLCs were obtained, on 4.8.2025. The spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Statements f witnesses were recorded.

13.2 On 5.8.2025, applicants were associated in the investigation, however, applicant Dharmender Singh has not pr duced the weapon of offence, i.e. sticks, upon which, Section 238 of the BNS was added.

13.4 After investigation, notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS were served upon them, and they were bound down. Thereafter, on the registration of the Cross FIR, lodged by the applicants against the complainant-party, further investigation was entrusted to ASI Kulwant Singh.

13.5 On 17.8.2025, complainant was again associated in the investigation, and she has made supplementary statement, under Section 180 of BNSS, before the I.O., ASI Kulwant Singh. As per her statement, applicants Dharmender Sharma and Richa Sharma, on 25.7.2025, by naming the family members of complainant and her son Rahul, made caste based aspersions by uttering the words “Chuda Chamar”, upon which, Sec ions 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act were added.

13.6 On 28.8.2025, the I.O. visited the spot and recorded the supplementary statement of Smt. Santosh and on 2.9.2025, list of Scheduled Castes and Sc eduled Tribes was requisitioned from the office of District Welfare Officer.

13.7 After perusing the said supplementary status report, interim bail was granted to the applicants, vide order dated 10.9.2025, and the matter was adjourned for 17.9.2025.

13.8 On 17.9.2025, the Police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein that the applicants have joined the investigation, on 11.9.2025.

13.9 In the supplementary status report, filed on 17.9.2025, it has been submitted that due to the acts of the applicants, there is resentment in the persons belonging to scheduled casts and scheduled tribes and complainant and her family members are facing mental trauma.

13.10 It has further been pleaded by the Police in the status report that in case, the ad-interim orders dated 10.9.2025 are made absolute, they may coerce the witnesses and may again indulge in the same activities.

13.11 On the basis of above facts, the matter was adjourned, for 24.9.2025. In the supplementary status report, filed on 24.9.2025, a similar stand has been taken by the Police, and the matter was again adjourned, for 8.10.2025. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned, for 14.10.2025.

13.12. As per the supplementary status report, filed on 14.10.2025, medical opinion on the MLC was obtained from M.O. Mashobra, and as per the information, injuries were found to be simple in nature.

13.13 Apart from this, the CD, allegedly forwarded by Richa Sharma was received by the Police, and, when the contents of the same were analyzed, it was fo nd that applicant Richa Sharma and Dharmender Sharma were trying to coerce her, and according to the Police, as per the conversation, it seems t at applicants Richa Sharma and Dharmender Sharma have violated the terms and conditions of the nterim bail, granted to them, vide order dated 10.9.2025, as they are pressurizing her to turn hostile. Reiterating the apprehensions, as afore-mentioned, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

13.14 On 28.10.2025, applicant Dharmender Sharma has moved application bearing Cr. M.P.No. 4634 of 2025, for placing on record additional documents, which, according to the applicants, are essential for the just adjudication of the case.

13.15 Vide order dated 6.11.2025, the application has been allowed and the documents were ordered to be taken on record. These d cuments are print outs of the message put by one Rajni, on her social media app, as well as, DDR lodged by applicant Richa Sharma.

In this case, the I.O./Police has put forward the apprehensions, which have been mentioned above, to oppose the bail applications.

Investigation of the present case is almost complete. Moreover, no prayer for custodial interrogation has been made by the I.O. As such, bail applications cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as role attributed to the applicants, would be proved during trial.

In view of the stand taken by both the parties, this Court is of the view that the alleged threatening to witness, namely Rajni, will be considered by the learned trial Court, at an appropriate stage.

Considering the maximum punishment, provided for the offences, for which, the applicants have been named as accused, this C urt is of the view that the applicants are en i led for the relief, as claimed in the applications, by confirming the ad-interim orders dated 10.9.2025.

Considering all these facts, the interim orders dated 10.9.2025, passed by this Court, are liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim orders dated 10.9.2025, passed in both the cases, are made absolute. This order, however, shall be subject to the following additional conditions:-

a) That the applicants shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; and

b) That the applicants 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 appropriate application.

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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 applications.

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail condi ions, is found violated by the applicants.