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.

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-Jaspal @ Yaspal has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.35 of 2025, dated 02.02.2025, registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.

3. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed, as, the police has filed the charge-sheet, against the applicant, in the competent Court of law.

4. It is the case of the applicant that there is no evidence, connecting him with the crime in question and as such, the relief of bail has been sought.

5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2025.

6. Apart from this, Mr. K.S. Gill, 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 01.02.2025, an information was received in Police Post Jogo, with regard to a quarrel, which had taken place at a village known as Sowan Majra, upon which, ASI Puneet Kumar, Incharge PP Jogo, along with other police officials, reached at the spot, near Gurudwara in Sowan Majra, where, complainant-Lakhvir Singh met the police and on the spot, a black coloured Thar was also found parked, whose front and driver side door glass was broken.

8.1. At the spot, complainant-Lakhvir Singh got recorded his statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, before the police, disclosing therein, that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is running a Dhaba, under the name and style of ‘Fouji Dhaba’ near Mahadev Gaushala.

8.2. As per the complainant, at about 09:30 pm, he had parked his Thar near Gurudwara, in Village Sowan Majra and by that time, a white coloured Alto car stopped in front of his Thar, from which, a person Jaspal @ Rinku S/o Nasib Chand (applicant), alighted down with a darat (big sickle) in his hand and broke the front glass of his Thar. According to him, had he not moved his head back immediately, the blow of the darat would have hit his head. Thereafter, Jaspal (applicant) inflicted another blow towards his neck, but, complainant had saved himself by changing his position.

8.3. Complainant has further got recorded that had he not changed his position, he would have been killed by the attack of said darat. According to the complainant, when, the applicant tried to kill him, in the meanwhile, some persons came there and the applicant threatened him that he was lucky as he had been saved, but, according to the applicant, he will ultimately kill him (complainant). At the same time, another person had also alighted down from Alto, who made Jaspal (applicant) to sit in the car and drove the car towards Varuna side. The complainant also noticed one other person, sitting on the back seat of the said car. He has mentioned the registration number of Alto Car as PB32-R-4314. Hence, he has prayed that the action be taken against Rinku and his accomplices.

8.4. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.

8.5. Subsequently, spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Vehicle (Thar) of complainant, along with keys, was taken into possession. On inspection of the Thar, it has been noticed