IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Bheem Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 969, 970, 971, 972, 973 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1) - Bail applications filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Applicants claimed innocence and argued that injuries sustained were simple in nature - Previous bail applications dismissed - Court noted grievous injuries declared by Medical Officer and the ongoing investigation - (Paras 1, 2, 11, 12)
(B) Bail - Presumption of innocence - Pre-trial punishment prohibited - Court emphasized that no useful purpose would be served by keeping applicants in custody as trial commencement is uncertain - (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The bail applications were filed in FIR No.87 of 2025 concerning a quarrel resulting in injuries to the complainant Sohan Lal, with allegations of grievous harm caused by sharp weapons. The applicants claimed they were falsely implicated.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail applications, ordering the release of applicants on bail with conditions to ensure their appearance and non-interference with the investigation.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of injuries and the applicants' claims of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty and that pre-trial detention is not justified when trial timelines are uncertain.
Result: Bail applications allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as, all the bail applications have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.87 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. The above-mentioned bail applications have been filed, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing the above named applicants, on bail, in the FIR in question, during the pendency of the case.
3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case.
4. In addition to this, they have also pleaded that in the MLC, only laceration was found on the left side face of complainant-Sohan Lal and according to the applicants, the said injury is simple in nature.
5. According to the applicants, they had earlier tried their luck by moving similar applications, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, the same were dismissed, vide order dated 16.04.2025.
6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, has prayed that during the pendency of the trial, the applicants may be released on bail and has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, the relief, as claimed in the applications, is given to them.
7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15.03.2025, an information was received in Police Post, Joghon, regarding the admission of Sohan Lal, in the hospital, in a case of quarrel. As such, HC Ranjit Singh No.2 reached at CHC Nalagarh, where, Sohan Lal, Jagat Ram and Dheeraj Ranaut, were found to have been brought for treatment, on being injured, in a quarrel. Thereafter, their MLCs were obtained from the hospital. Statement of complainant-Jagat Ram was got recorded, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein, that on 15.03.2025, at about 9:22 AM, when, he was returning back after supplying the milk at Panjehra Milk Dairy, then, he heard the sound of screaming from the house of Madan Lal and after some time, he noticed that his wife, namely Rajesh Bala, was coming from the house of Madan Lal.
7.1. On inquiry, his wife disclosed that Madan Lal (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.973 of 2025), Bheem Chand, (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.969 of 2025), Hukam Singh (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.972 of 2025), Meghnath (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.970 of 2025) and his two sons namely Nikhil (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.971 of 2025) and Jassi, and their daughters-in-law, namely Nisha, Seema Sakandra Devi, Rishma Devi and Bina Devi, were quarreling with Sohan Lal. They were having sticks (Dandas) and axes, in their hands. Thereafter, the complainant, along with his sons, Dheeraj Ranaut, Manav and Jatindra Sharma, had gone to the house of Madan Lal and noticed that the above persons were beating his brother Sohan Lal. They had also attacked on the complainant. Consequently, complainant and his son Dheeraj Ranaut, had sustained injuries.
7.2. During the said quarrel, Madan Lal (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.973 of 2025) inflicted axe blow on the head of Sohan Lal, Hukam Singh (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.972 of 2025) was having a Darat (big sickle) in his hand, Meghnath (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.970 of 2025) was having a hoe (Kudali) in his hand, Nikhil (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.971 of 2025) was having a Barcha/rod in his hand, Jassi was having a sword, whereas, ladies were having Dandas in their hands. With great difficulty, complainant had come out from there. Thereafter, the complainant took his brother Sohan Lal to the hospital for treatment. Upon this, the police registered the cas
The presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty, and pre-trial detention is not justified when trial timelines are uncertain.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
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 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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
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 a form of punishment; pre-trial detention is prohibited when investigation is complete and medical evidence suggests death was not caused by the accused's actions.
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.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants must cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions.
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.