Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.896 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 384, 201, and 34 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for charges of abetment of suicide and extortion - Investigation completed, charge-sheet filed, and no further custodial interrogation required - Presumption of innocence upheld as no prior criminal history - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 10, 12, 16, 17)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court must consider the nature of the crime, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence - Conditions can be imposed to mitigate risks associated with bail. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with the suicide of Manish Kumar, allegedly due to blackmail by a woman. The applicant claims false implication and has been in custody since January 2025. The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. (Paras 1, 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's continued custody was not justified given the completion of the investigation and the absence of a prior criminal record. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the completion of the investigation. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and the applicant should not be punished before the trial concludes. Conditions were imposed to ensure compliance with the trial process. (Paras 12, 18)
Result: Bail application allowed; the applicant is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds. (Paras 16, 17)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Pankaj Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.02 of 2024, dated 01.01.2024, registered under Sections 306, 384, 201 and34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated and arrested, in this case.
3. As per the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the crime, as alleged against him.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and according to the applicant, nothing is to be recovered from him or at his instance. Charge-sheet is also stated to have been filed, in this case. The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody since January, 2025.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 01.04.2025.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates, have given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 01.01.2024, Harpal Singh, S/o Mangat Ram, telephonically informed the police that dead body of his nephew Manish Kumar is found hanging from a tree in Jamludi forest and requested to come and take action. The missing report of said Manish Kumar was lodged by complainant on 31.12.2023, upon which, ASI Bhajan Singh, the then Incharge, Police Post Ray, along with other police officials, reached at the spot. At the spot, dead body of Manish Kumar was found hanging with rope tied to a branch of the tree. Photography was done.
8.1. It is the case of the police that at the spot, complainant-Harpal Singh made a statement, under Section 154 of CrPC, disclosing therein, that Manish Kumar, aged about 26 years, was his nephew, who was working as a Tractor Driver. On 27.12.2023, Manish Kumar had attended his work, but, on 28.12.2023, Manish Kumar had not attended the work. When enquired, no whereabouts of Manish Kumar could be found, as, he was not found in his house.
8.2. On 30.12.2023, at about 05:10 am, Manish Kumar sent a message on the mobile phone of the complainant, contents of which are reproduced as under, which have been mentioned in the statement, under Section 154 of CrPC,:-
“HARPAL CHACHA JI PLEASE MUJHE MAFE KR DENA MAIN 28 TARIK SE BAHUT JYADA PARSHAN HU MUJHE FACEBOOK PR EK LADKI NE FRD REQUEST BEJI THI FIR MANIE EQCPET KR LI FIR USNE MUJHE BOLA KI APP MUJHE SE DOSTI KARUGE TO MANIE BOLA THIK H FIR USNE MERA WHATSAPP NO 7876517058 MAGA MANIE DE DIYA FIR USNE MUJHE WHATSAPP PR MSG KIYA USKE BAAD USNE MUJHE MERI PIC MAGI PIR USNE MERI DIDI KI PIC MAGI TO MAIN DE DI USKE BAAD USNE MUJHE VIDEO CALL KI AUR BOLA KI AAJ SEX KRNA H USKE BAD USNE PEHLE APNE KAPDE UTARE FIR MAINE PR USNE MERI VIDEO SAVE KR LI USNE MUJHE BOLA KI AAB M TERI VIDEO SARI DUNIYA KO BATA DUGI AUR YOU TUBE PR VE VIRL KR DUGI TUJHE M BARBAD KAR DUGI FIR USNE BOLA KI VIDEO DELETE KRNE K LIYE MUJH SE 11000 RUPYE MAGE TO MANIE DE DIYA FIR USNE MERI VIDEO DELETE NHI KI AB MUJH SE 21000 PAISE MAGE HAI M AB BAHUT JYADA TENSION M HU AB M SUSSAIDE KRNE JAA RHA HU BAKI SAB MERE WHATS PR CHAT H USKA NAM SANIYE JAIN H AUR MΕΙΝ ΑΡΝΙ SHIM BE TOD DI HAI MERE SATH PEHI BAR HUA H M MARNE JAAA RHA HU SRY AUR MUJHE BAHUT JYADA BALCK MAIL KR RAHI H, HARPAL CHACHA JI MEIN SUSSAIDE KRNE JAA RHA HU PLEASE MUJHE MAAF KAR DENA MEIN AAJ MORNING SE KUCH BE NHI KHAYA H BAHUT JYADA PA
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
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 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 cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
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 established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a 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 court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment before trial, emphasizing that continued detention is unwarranted when the investigation is complete.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
