IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Manpreet Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No.600 of 2025, Cr.MP (M) No.601 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 3(5) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail application - Applicants sought bail apprehending arrest in a case involving grievous injuries - Court noted that allegations against applicants would be proved during trial and pre-trial punishment is prohibited - Interim order for bail made absolute with conditions. (Paras 21, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, accused of causing grievous injuries, claimed innocence and sought bail under Section 482 of BNSS, asserting they were falsely implicated. They provided clean antecedents and undertook to comply with any court directions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no need for custodial interrogation as the police did not require it, and the presumption of innocence remained in favor of the applicants.
Issues: The main issues included the necessity of custodial interrogation and the implications of pre-trial punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty during trial.
Result: Applicants are ordered to be released on bail, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
The applicants, apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025, registered, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), have filed the above titled applications, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest.
2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in this case. According to them, they have not committed the offence as alleged.
3. Apart from this, the applicants have also put forward their clean antecedents to seek the relief, as prayed for.
4. The applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued under Section 482 BNSS.
5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the applications.
6. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.02.2025, from CHC, Nalagarh, a telephonic information was received in Police Station, Nalagarh, disclosing therein that one person, who had sustained injuries in a quarrel, taken place at Pirsthan, had been brought to Hospital for treatment and a request was made to the police to send someone. Thereafter, the Police visited the Hospital, where, a person namely Shyam Lal, was taken for treatment.
6.1. Thereafter, his medico-legal examination was conducted by the doctor and the doctor has declared the injuries on the person of Shyam Lal as sharp. Thereafter, in the Hospital itself Shyam Lal got recorded his statement under Section 173 of the BNSS, wherein, he had disclosed that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is driver by profession.
6.2. According to the complainant, on 18.2.2025, at about 2.00 p.m., his cousin Shareefdeen, telephonically, informed him that his driver Abdul has been beaten by Preet and his companion at Pick-up Union Pirsthan, upon which, complainant assured his cousin that he will come there and discuss the matter. At that time, he was at Bharatgarh. He had parked his vehicle and thereafter, he had gone at Pirsthan over motorcycle PB-20E4086.
6.3. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to union President, Pirsthan and inquired from him, as to who had beaten the driver of his cousin, upon which, he had disclosed that no incident had taken place in his presence. But, according to him, the persons, who had beaten the driver of his cousin, were sitting in Pick-up No.HP-12M- 3517.
6.4. When, the complainant had gone to inquire the said persons; namely Preet and his companion, sitting in the Pick-up, then, they got furious and had taken out their swords. When the complainant tried to flee away, then, both of them came out of the pick-up and accused Preet had inflicted a blow on his head with the help of sword, whereas, the other boy had also inflicted blow on his head. 6.4. Thereafter, both the said assailants fled away from the spot and threatened to kill him. The complainant also prayed that action be taken against the said persons.
6.5. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
7. Thereafter, CT Scan of the injured was done at Regional Hospital, Solan. Spot was visited on 24.02.2025. Final opinion, from the Medical Officer, CHC Nalagarh, on the MLC of injured was obtained, upon which, the Medical Officer has described the injuries on the persons of the injured as grievous sharp. As such, Section 118(1) of BNS was deleted and Section 118(2) of BNS was added. Blood stained clothes of the complainant were taken into possession and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS.
8. It is the further case of the police that both the accused person
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied without just cause, especially when custodial interrogation is not required.
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.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
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 ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of necessity for continued custody after investigation completion.
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.
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.