Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Vicky - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 347 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 323, 147 and 149 - Bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for regular bail in a murder case - The court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right and should only be curtailed when necessary - The petitioner is a permanent resident and no apprehension of fleeing was expressed by the State - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 9, 12, 14)
(B) Bail - The object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not punitive - The court must consider the charge, evidence, and potential punishment when deciding bail applications. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was involved in a scuffle leading to the death of an individual, with the prosecution alleging involvement of multiple parties. The investigation is complete, and no recoveries are pending from the petitioner. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be granted bail considering the circumstances and lack of evidence suggesting a risk of flight or tampering with evidence. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of personal liberty against the seriousness of the charges and the conditions under which bail should be granted. (Paras 9, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal liberty is paramount and should not be curtailed without necessity, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Bail application allowed; petitioner to be released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail, in FIR No.14 of 2024, dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Mcleodganj District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 302, 323, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the status report.
3. In the case at hand, a telephonic information was received in Police Station Mcleodganj from the hospital that an individual belonging to the State of Punjab has been brought to the hospital and was dead. On receiving the aforesaid information, the police rushed to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. The informant in the case at hand is one Harmanpreet Singh, who got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC. As per the informant on 20.03.2024, he alongwith his elder brother Navdeep Singh, brother-in-law Gagandeep Singh and their friend Sandeep Awan had come to Mcleodganj in vehicle bearing No. PB-36H-7127.
4. At Mcleodganj, they had stayed at hotel named OM Palace at Bhagsunag. On 21.03.2024 for having breakfast, they had gone Aryan Cofee Shop. When they were sitting inside the coffee shop, the owner of the shop had asked them to refrain from consuming alcohol in his coffee shop. Informant alongwith others had informed the coffee shop owned (Hoshiar Singh) that they would not be consuming alcohol in the morning.
5. Upon this, an altercation took place inside the coffee shop. While the altercation was taken place inside coffee shop, the son of the coffee shop owned (Hoshiar Singh) also arrived on the spot. The father, son duo pushed the informant alongwith Navdeep, Gagandeep and Sanjeev Avan outside the coffee shop. Once they were outside the coffee shop, Hoshiar Singh owner of the coffee shop loudly insinuated against the aforesaid four individuals.
6. On hearing Hoshiar Singh, coffee shop owner shouting at the aforesaid four individuals, his relatives Ankush Kumar @ Garati, Ankush Kapoor, Kunal Neharia @ Sagar, Vicky (bail petitioner), taxi operator Raman Kumar @ Banta and one Ajay Kumar rushed towards the coffee shop. Vicky (bail petitioner) accused, Ankush Kumar @ Garati, Hoshiar Singh and accused Aryan got hold of deceased Navdeep Singh outside the coffee shop.
7. The other individuals including the present bail petitioner started beating Harmanpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Sanjeev Ayan and pushed them towards rain shed, in the ensuing scuffle. The location of the bail petition in the case at hand is being determined on the basis of Mobile Tower Location. Even otherwise as per the own case of the prosecution, insofar as the scuffle with the deceased Navdeep Singh is concerned, only Ankush Kumar @ Garati, Hoshiar Singh and Aryan son of the coffee shop owner are said to have been involved.
8. Investigation in the case at hand is complete. Challan stands filed on 06.06.2024. No recoveries are to be effected from the petitioner.
9. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
10. In coming to the determination that whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take trial, three elements need to be kept in mind, namely the charge, the nature of evidence by which it is supported and the punishment to which the party would be liable, if convicted. At the time of deciding a bail application, a detailed discussion of evidence, so collected and produced by the prosecution is to be avoided as it may cause prejudice either to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the bail petitioner.
11. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Punishment begins after conviction. Every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the
Personal liberty is a fundamental right that should only be curtailed when necessary, and bail should be granted unless there is a risk of flight or tampering with evidence.
Bail granted in murder case emphasizing prolonged incarceration, completed investigation, examined witnesses, trial delay overrule offence gravity; personal liberty paramount, presumption of innocenc....
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted to ensure attendance at trial, not as a punitive measure.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when no contraband is found in possession, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged cri....
Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, absence of prior criminal history, and lack of risk of flight or witness tampering.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless necessary to ensure attendance at trial, with conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.
Pre-trial incarceration is not the norm; individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and bail should secure attendance at trial without punitive measures.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
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
