The court affirmed that bail is a rule and cancellation requires cogent grounds, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for substantial evidence against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of all the above-titled petitions, which have been filed, under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) by petitioner-Ravinder Kumar.

2. The present petitions have been filed, seeking cancellation of bail, granted to respondent No.2-Mangla Devi in CrMP(M) No.2217 of 2024, respondent No.2- Kanchana Devi in CrMP(M) No.2218 of 2024 and respondent No.2-Bimla Devi in CrMP(M) No.2219 of 2024, by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), vide order dated 22.07.2024, in case FIR No.40 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in issue’), under Sections 302, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

3. As per the applicant, after registration of the FIR in issue, respondent No.2, in all the three cases, had filed the anticipatory bails, before the learned trial Court. However, the same were dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2023. Thereafter, respondent No.2, in all the three cases, were arrested. Subsequently, they had filed regular bail applications, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), which were allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 22.07.2024.

4. According to the applicant, the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality, while granting the bail, by disassociating respondent No.2 from the other co- accused, on the basis of the information, given in the FIR. As per the applicant, the learned trial Court has ignored the legal implication of Section 34 of the IPC, as, FIR in issue has been registered, under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and as such, the Court cannot segregate the role of respondent No.2 with the other co-accused.

5. In this regard, the applicant has also highlighted the fact that the videography of the incident was on record, to contend that the learned trial Court has wrongly held in all the three cases that there was no allegation against respondent No.2, in all the three cases. Highlighting the provisions of Section 34 of IPC, it has been pleaded that the main offence is attributed to all the accused.

6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the present petitions may be allowed, by cancelling the bail, in all the three cases, granted to respondent No.2, vide orders dated 22.07.2024.

7. Along with the petition, copy of FIR, copy of bail application and copy of orders, impugned herein, have been annexed.

8. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.05.2024, one Yuvraj, S/o Rania Ram, informed the police that his father has been beaten by Ranjeet Singh and his family members, due to which, his father has been taken to Hospital at Hamirpur, for treatment. As such, he has requested that action be taken against the said persons.

9. Subsequently, on the information of Yuvraj, the police reached at Medical College and Hospital, Hamirpur, where, Rania Ram, Ravinder Kumar, Soma Devi and Neelma Devi were found to be admitted for treatment. Thereafter, the request was made to doctor regarding conducting the MLCs of the aforesaid persons/injured. At the spot, Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sikh Ram, has made a statement, under Section 154 of CrPC, disclosing therein that on 23.05.2024, in the evening, he, along with his sister-in-law Soma Devi, brother Rania Ram, Yuvraj S/o Rania Ram, his wife Neelma Devi and his sister-in-law Reena Kumari, had gone to their field to throw cow dung.

10. Thereafter, at about 06:30 pm, when, they were throwing the cow dung in the field, then, both sons of Ranjeet Singh, namely Manoj Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, their wives and mother Bimla Devi, came there and started abusing them, upon which, complainant party req