Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Neha Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 774 of 2025
Decided On : 16-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

The court emphasized that bail should not be granted for serious offences, especially those punishable by capital punishment, and that shared liability exists when co-accused act in concert.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1), 117(2), 3(5) - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for involvement in the death of Bhura Ram following a physical altercation - The petitioner, a woman with two young children, claimed innocence and argued against the attribution of death to her actions - The court emphasized the need for bail to ensure presence during trial and the gravity of the offence - The petitioner was found to have acted in concert with her husband, thus sharing liability under the relevant sections. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court reiterated that bail should not be granted if the accused is involved in serious offences, especially those punishable by capital punishment, and emphasized the importance of ensuring the accused's presence during trial. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with the death of Bhura Ram, who died following injuries sustained during a physical altercation involving the petitioner and her co-accused. The petitioner is a mother of two young children and claims to have been falsely implicated.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, which carries severe penalties, and thus denied bail.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, the nature of the injuries, and the delay between the injury and death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner acted in concert with her husband, establishing shared liability under Section 3(5) of BNS, and emphasized that the delay in death does not absolve her of responsibility.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 11 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused Som Chand had given beatings to Bhura Ram and the informant Kalawati. Bhura Ram developed pain in his stomach. He was taken to the Medical College, Nahan and PGI Chandigarh. He died on 15.2.2025 in his home. The petitioner is a woman. She has two children aged 4 and 6 years. Her parents-in-law are aged 72 and 75 years, and are unable to take care of the minors. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family. She has roots in the society. She is 28 years old. She would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that he had gone to his field on 22.1.2025 at about 5.30 PM. Som Chand started abusing him and his wife. The informant inquired as to why the accused, Som Chand, was abusing him. Neha (present petitioner) and Som Chand gave beatings to the informant. The informant sustained injuries. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Kalawati made a statement that she had gone to her village, where Som Chand and his wife, Neha, arrived and accused him of damaging the ‘dhol’. Bhura Ram came to the field at 5.30 PM. Som Chand and Neha repeated their allegations regarding damage to the Dhol. Som Chand and Neha gave beatings to Bhura Ram. Neha pushed Bhura Ram to the ground, and Som Chand inflicted injuries upon him. Bhura Ram was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to Nahan and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was the presence of a draining pipe for the abdominal inflammation in the pancreas. The death was a sequel to blunt trauma to the pancreas, leading to pancreatitis. As per the final opinion, no marks of injury were found at the time of examination of the body, and the weapon of injury could not be commented upon.

3. I have heard Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the beatings were given by Som Chand. The death was caused after a considerable delay and cannot be attributed to the injuries. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had pushed the deceased to the ground while her husband gave beatings to him. This shows that both the accused were acting in concert and the accused/petitioner is liable under Section 3(5) of BNS. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discret