IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Suraj Thakur - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CrMP (M) No. 311 of 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 109, 324(4), 238, 118(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail application - Applicant apprehends arrest in FIR alleging serious offenses including grievous injury - Court considers the applicant's claims of false implication and prior cases - Interim protection granted, subject to conditions. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Presumption of innocence - The applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited. (Paras 23)
(C) Conditions for bail - Reasonable conditions can be imposed to address police concerns regarding witness coercion. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of grievous injury inflicted on the complainant using a vehicle and a sharp weapon. The applicant claims false implication and has a history of prior cases.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no useful purpose in denying bail, given the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the presumption of innocence.
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's claims of false implication, the seriousness of the allegations, and the appropriateness of bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that the applicant's presumption of innocence must be upheld, and bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment.
Result: Interim order made absolute, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.04 of 2025 dated 19.01.2025, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in issue’), registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 109, 324(4), 238 and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P., the applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’).
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Ramshehar, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR.
3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, on the distorted facts. No incident, according to him, had allegedly taken place, at any point of time.
4. As per applicant, Section 109 of BNS is stated to have been added by the investigating agency, just to curtail the liberty to the applicant.
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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2025.
6. It is the case of the applicant that apart from the present case, there are two other cases, registered against him, out of which, FIR No.54/2011, registered under Sections 341, 323, 34 of IPC, with Police Station Ramshehar, was compromised, before the Gram Panchayat, Ramshehar and the other FIR No.42/2019, registered under Sections 355, 323, 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, with Police Station Ramshehar, is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh.
7. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 18.01.2025, an intimation was received in the Police Station and thereafter, the Investigating Officer, in order to ascertain the said information, had reached at the spot, where, Harish Kumar (complainant) was found in injured condition. He was sent to hospital for his medico legal examination.
9. It is the case of the police that when, the doctor declared the complainant fit for making statement, he has made the statement, disclosing therein that he is a transporter by profession. On 18.01.2025, he had gone to Nalagarh in connection with his work. On the evening of the same day, he was returning back on his motorcycle, bearing registration No.HP12-B-1179. At about 09:00 pm, when, he reached near Shivalik Public School, then, from the opposite side, a black coloured Thar, being driven by its driver, came there and its driver intentionally hit the motorcycle with his Thar. Consequently, the complainant fell down. Thereafter, driver Suraj (applicant) alighted down from the Thar and attacked upon the complainant with sharp-edged khukhri (weapon) and has inflicted injuries to the complainant.
10. According to the complainant, two injuries were inflicted on the right leg and one injury was inflicted on the left leg. On screaming, applicant, after abusing and threatening to finish him, had left the spot, towards Ramshehar in his Thar. On hearing the screaming, Vikram Singh, Sunil Sharma and Satpal Singh reached there, who, with the help of Ambulance, took the injured to Civil Hospital, Nalagarh. As such, he has prayed that the action be taken against the applicant.
11. As per the status report, on 19.01.2025, at the instance of witnesses, spot was visited and spot map was prepared. The damaged motorcycle, bearing registration No.HP12-B-1179, was taken into police possession. The statements of the witnesses were reco
The presumption of innocence must be upheld, and anticipatory bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, with reasonable conditions imposed to address police concerns.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The court confirmed interim bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and prohibiting pre-trial punishment, while imposing conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied without just cause, especially when custodial interrogation is not required.
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and bail may be granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of commercial quantity of contraband.
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 cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with 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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
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.
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.