IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Hira Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 996 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 132, 121(2), 303(2), 3(5) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail during trial, asserting innocence and completion of investigation - Previous bail applications were dismissed - Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary and emphasized the presumption of innocence - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with illegal mining activities and alleged assault on a government official. The investigation was complete, and the case was pending trial. (Paras 1, 8, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the applicant's continued detention was unwarranted given the completion of the investigation and the presumption of innocence. (Paras 10, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant's custodial interrogation was necessary and the implications of pre-trial detention. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and that the applicant should not be kept in custody indefinitely, given the presumption of innocence. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Bail application allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions. (Paras 14, 15)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Hira Lal has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.37 of 2025, dated 11.02.2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 132, 121(2), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case and has been arrested by the police.
3. Applicant is stated to be in judicial custody and the investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed.
4. According to the applicant, he is a law-abiding citizen and after completion of the investigation, his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police, in this case.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Division Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2025.
5.1. Thereafter, the applicant had moved bail application, bearing CrMP(M) No.521 of 2025, before this Court. However, the said application was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 20.03.2025.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has 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 10.02.2025, at about 07:00 pm, SDM Mandi telephonically informed the police that illegal mining is going on in Bindravani area of Mandi and asked to send police, upon which, SHO/Inspector Desh Raj, SI Jitendra Kumar and other police party, left for Bindravani. On reaching the spot, it was found that SDM Mandi Om Kant Thakur was present there in injured condition, along with his driver and vehicle. As per the directions of SHO/Inspector Desh Raj, SI Jitendra Kumar took SDM Om Kant Thakur to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where, he was medico legally examined and his MLC was obtained. In the MLC, the Medical Officer has declared the nature of injury on the person of Om Kant Thakur as grievous.
8.1. Thereafter, SI Jitendra Kumar recorded the statement of complainant Om Kant Thakur, under Section 173 of BNSS, in which, he has disclosed that on 10.02.2025, he left, in his Government vehicle, bearing No.HP01-M-6138, with his driver Suraj Gupta, at about 06:30 pm, towards Bayuli-Bindarvani, for checking the illegal mining, going on in the Beas river. When, he reached little ahead of the Truck Union in Bindarvani, a tractor was parked with a trolley on the temporary unpaved road, going towards the Beas River. The mining material was being brought from the Beas River on horses and was being loaded into the tractor trolley. The complainant got stopped his vehicle in front of the said vehicle. As soon as, the complainant and his driver alighted down from the vehicle, 3-4 persons, who were doing the mining work there, had ran away from the spot. Since, at the said place, it was not possible for the driver to turn the vehicle, as such, he had started driving the vehicle in reverse gear towards the main road and the complainant also sat in the vehicle. As soon as the vehicle reached the main road, a person came there and stopped their vehicle after abusing them and uttered the words ‘SDM sala kon hota hai, ye meri mining site hai’.
8.2. When, the complainant introduced him to the said person and enquired from him as to who was doing the illegal activities of mining and whose tractor and horses were
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 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.
The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of necessity for continued custody after investigation completion.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite the registration of a case, and bail is granted when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
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 ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite multiple cases against the applicant, and bail is granted as the quantity of contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Ac....
The court ruled that the applicant's possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics allows for bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
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.