Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Chamel Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP (M) No. 376 of 2025 a/w CrMPs (M) No. 378 to 383 & 392 to 404 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 115 (2), 190 and 191 (2) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Bail application filed by applicants seeking release during trial - Applicants claimed innocence and alleged false accusations by the complainant related to a scuffle at a marriage - Court noted that the applicants surrendered, cooperated with the investigation, and had no prior convictions - Interim bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 24)
(B) Bail - Principles - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied merely as punishment if applicants are cooperating with the investigation. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were involved in a scuffle during a marriage function, leading to a complaint alleging assault and caste-based remarks. The complainant claimed injuries and theft of a gold chain.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants made a case for bail, considering their cooperation and lack of prior convictions.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be granted bail despite the complainant's allegations and the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment and that the applicants had shown willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Result: Bail applications allowed and interim bail made absolute.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
The above-noted applicants, by surrendering themselves to the custody of this Court, have filed these applications, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), seeking the relief of releasing them, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 10 of 2025, dated 22nd February, 2025, registered under Sections 115 (2) , 190 and 191 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS ’) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been named as accused persons, in the above-noted case, at the instance of the complainant, as, he has lodged a false FIR with ulterior motive to harass them.
3. It is the case of the applicants that there was a marriage of one Amit, s/o Shri Khattar Singh, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, where, the applicants, alongwith other villagers, were also invited, and, the applicants, being respectable persons of the village, attended the said marriage.
4. As per the version of the applicants, some altercation took place between the complainant and applicant-Attar Singh, on account of some political discussions and differences of opinion. The other applicants intervened and tried to pacify the issue, but, a scuffle took place between the persons present there. Thereafter, afore-mentioned FIR was lodged by the complainant.
5. It is the specific case of the applicants that no caste based aspersions were made by them.
6. According to the applicants, they are respectable persons of the society and are permanent residents of the addresses, as mentioned in the applications, as such, there are no chances of their fleeing from justice.
7. The applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
8. On the basis of the above facts, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants, in the respective bail applications, have prayed that the bail applications may kindly be allowed and the applicants may be ordered to be released on bail.
9. Since, the applicants have moved the present bail applications, by surrendering themselves to the custody of the Court, on 1st March, 2025, as such, the State/police was directed to file the status report.
10. Consequently, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that complainant-Kamal Deep (respondent No. 2), moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that on 22nd February, 2025, he had gone to Village Diyando, in order to attend a marriage, in the house of his relative, where, at about 01.00 in the noon, Attar Singh, r/o Village Diyando, had a scuffle with him and he had slapped him (complainant).
10.1. According to the complainant, thereafter, 15-20 other persons, who were taking their meals, namely Pratap Singh, Ashok, Kanwar Singh, Suresh, Dinesh, Chamel Singh and others, whose names were not known to him, have also beaten him.
10.2. As per the complainant, he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the persons, who had beaten him, are from General category (Rajput). During the scuffle, the gold chain of the complainant is stated to have been taken away, the cost of which, according to the complainant, was Rs.1,50,000/-.
10.3. Lastly, the complainant has deposed that when, he was being beaten, the accused persons had also made caste based aspersions.
10.4. The incident is also stated to have been recorded, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered and the police machinery swung into motion. The complainant was medico-legally examined at CHC Shillai. The injuries, on the person of the complainant, were found to be simple in nature, caused with blunt weapon.
10.5. Since, the provisions of SC & ST Act were attracted, in this case, as s
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants cooperating with the investigation are entitled to release.
Bail applications cannot be dismissed as pre-trial punishment; applicants are presumed innocent until trial concludes.
The presumption of innocence applies, and interim bail is warranted when the investigation is complete and no custodial interrogation is required.
The court emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and interim bail was granted with conditions to ensure compliance and safety of the complainant.
The presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is not required and the investigation is complete, emphasizing the applicant's availability for trial.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants must cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions.
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.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law; bail cannot be denied without evidence necessitating custodial interrogation.
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
