IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Ajay Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 652 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for FIR No.207 of 2024 under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Applicant claims innocence and lack of evidence against him - Previous bail applications dismissed - Police application for release due to lack of direct evidence against applicant - Court finds no useful purpose in keeping applicant in custody - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1 - 24 )
(B) Bail - Conditions for bail - Applicant must attend trial, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without permission - Observations made are not an opinion on merits of the case. (Paras 25 - 26 )
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Ajay Kumar, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ' BNS S '), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.207 of 2024, dated 25.08.2024, registered, under Sections 103 , 127(2) , 125(b) , 61(2) , 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.
3. The applicant has termed the entire case of the prosecution as false and frivolous, as there is nothing on the record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that the prosecution could not collect any evidence to connect him with the alleged offence.
5. According to the applicant, he is a young man of 22 years and in case, he is kept in the judicial custody, it would adversely affect his future.
6. As per the applicant, he has been kept in column No.12, as suspect, in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC.
7. According to him, moreover, on 23.12.2024, the police has moved an application for release of the applicant, on the ground that the name of the applicant has been kept in Column No.12, and in Test Identification Parade, he has not been identified. However, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
8. The applicant has also tried his luck, by moving similar application, bearing Bail Application No.255-NL/22 of 2024, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, however, the same was dismissed on 13.01.2025.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 25.08.2024, HC Amarjeet Singh No.48, I.O., had given the information qua the fact that he noticed two persons; one was lying in injured condition and the other was lying unconscious, at a place known as Sandoli Khawadian and he was taking both the persons to CHC Baddi for treatment.
10.1. Thereafter, Inspector/SHO, along with other police official, reached at CHC Baddi, where the two persons were taken by the I.O. Injured Lakshmi Kant was declared as fit to make statement, and was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment, whereas, the other person namely Rahul Rai, was declared dead.
10.2. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 173 BNSS , wherein, he had disclosed that he is resident of village Pawa, Tehsil Bustabad, District Unnav, UP and is residing in a rented accommodation at Panchkula, along with three other persons. Rahul is his friend.
10.3. On 25.08.2024, all the four persons had boarded a bus and at about 3.30 p.m., they reached Baddi, where the companion of Rahul had gone to purchase Ganja. When Rahul was purchasing Ganja, then a scuffle took place with the person, who had allegedly sold Ganja to them, as Rahul had not paid the amount to him. The other party was from the locality, as such, they came there along with Dandas in their hands and all the four persons were beaten by them.
10.4. According to the complainant, the assailants were not known to him, however, he could identify them, if produced before him. They all were stated to be of 22-27 years of age.
10.5. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
11. During investigation, the spot was visited by the team of expert of FSL. Dead body of Rahul Rai was sent for postmortem examination to IGMC. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives for performing the last rites.
12. As per the further investigation, involvement of accused Chetan Singh, Ram Karan and Karan Kumar @ Soni was found. All the three were inquired and were arrested on
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The presumption of innocence mandates that an accused cannot be held in custody indefinitely without evidence, and bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; pre-trial detention is prohibited when investigation is complete and medical evidence suggests death was not caused by the accused's actions.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.