The court established that pre-trial detention is prohibited, emphasizing the need for bail when the trial is unlikely to commence soon and conditions are imposed to ensure compliance.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Applicant-Kesari Devi, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.41 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024, registered, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, she has been arrested, in a false case and at the time of alleged incident, she was neither present on the spot, nor, has played any role, as, deceased has fallen down and sustained injuries.

3. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigating agency could not collect any evidence, on the basis of which, any role can be attributed to the applicant. In this regard, she has relied upon the medical report, as according to the applicant, the said report also suggests that the injuries received by the deceased were not due to any sharp/blunt weapon.

4. According to the applicant, as per the medical report, the deceased died due to septicemic shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to head region.

5. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed, as the police has filed the charge- sheet on 11.02.2025. Now, nothing is stated to be recovered from the applicant, nor, at her instance.

6. As per the applicant, the trial against her will take sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served, by keeping her in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.

7. The applicant has also tried her luck, by moving similar applications, before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, however, her applications were dismissed, vide orders, dated 16.11.2024 and 02.01.2025.

8. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, she is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

9. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may kindly be released on bail, during the pendency of trial.

10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 13.04.2024, complainant Jabna Chauhan has submitted a complaint through e-mail, mentioning therein that on 12.4.2024, when mother of the complainant was on her way to Parwara, in order to mourn the death of someone and when, she was crossing the fields, situated beneath the house of the complainant, then, Suresh Kumar and his wife Kesari Devi and their sons had attacked on her mother Dharmi Devi. They had inflicted the blow with Shovel and with sharp edged weapon, as well as, with the help of stones.

10.1. After inflicting the injuries, her mother was thrown away into the gorge. When, they were sure that the mother of the complainant had died, they had gone to Keyolidhar market and called the members of Panchayat and other persons. They had tried to show that the mother of the complainant had fallen into the gorge.

10.2. The incident had happened at 10.00 a.m., whereas, the complainant came to know about this fact at 12.45 p.m., in the noon, and till then a lot of blood had oozed out from her head. The complainant took her mother firstly to Bagsyad hospital, from where, she was referred to Ner Chowk Hospital.

10.3. Since, her condition was critical, as such, she was referred to IGMC Shimla. They reached at IGMC Shimla at 12.00 midnight. She has been admitted in the ICU.

10.4. According to the complainant the condition of her mother was serious and she was fighting for her life.

10.5. Lastly, the complainant has stated that the land, where, the incident had taken place, is owned by them, however, Suresh and his family members want to usurp the same. They had also put pressure upon them to transfer it to them. When, the complainant party had refused for the same, then, they h