IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Harish Kumar @ Happy - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 332 of 2025 & Cr.M.P. (M) No. 390 of 2025
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 109(1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 238, 115(2), 117(2) - Arms Act - Section 25-54-1959 - Bail applications filed by applicants claiming innocence and completion of investigation - Previous bail applications dismissed - Court finds no need for custodial interrogation and allows bail. (Paras 1, 14, 15)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - Applicants must not tamper with evidence or leave the country without permission - Observations made are not indicative of the case's merits. (Paras 16, 17)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The above titled bail applications are being decided by the common order, as the applicants have filed the present applications, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) in case FIR No. 87 of 2024, dated 25.9.2024, under Sections 109 (1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 238, 115(2) & 117(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS”) and Section 25-54-1959 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated in the present case. 3. According to them, they are respectable persons and have no concern, whatsoever, with the case registered against them.
4. Applicant Ajay Kumar has tried his luck by moving bail application, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., which was dismissed on 1.2.2025, whereas, applicant Harish Kumar @ Happy has tried his luck by moving bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), which was dismissed on 29.11.2024.
5. According to the applicants, investigation in the present case, is complete and nothing has to be recovered from them or at their instance.
6. In addition to this, the applicants, through their respective learned counsel, have undertaken to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court, in case ordered to be released on bail.
7. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicants, during pendency of the trial.
8. When, put to notice, Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 24.9.2024, at about 8:23 p.m., Rajesh Kumar, complainant has informed the Police of Police Station, Kot Kehloor, through telephone that Happy, Goldy etc. are quarreling with him and have beaten him, upon which, Sub Inspector Madan Mohan, alongwith other Police Officials, reached at Bus Stand Behal to verify the facts, where Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar met them in injured condition, who has disclosed that accused persons had fired upon them, and Rakesh Kumar suffered bullet injury on his back, upon which, both the injured were taken to AIIMS Bilaspur, where Medical Officer has declared Rajesh Kumar fit to make statement.
8.1 Consequently, his statement under Section 173 of BNSS was recorded, who has got recorded that he is running an electrician shop in Kehloor Bazar. His brother is stated to be working as Operator with a Contractor, working for the construction of Railway Tunnel.
8.2 On 24.9.2024, at about 7:30 p.m., complainant was waiting for his brother Gurnam Singh near Banyan tree. After sometime, Goldy, S/o Prem, alongwith some unknown person, came there and inquired from the complainant as to why he was standing there, upon which, the complainant had disclosed that he is waiting for his brother, upon which, they stated that this is not the occasion to stand there. The complainant again disclosed them that he is waiting for his brother, upon which, Sonu slapped him. Thereafter, all the four persons had started beating him with fist blows, upon which, the complainant fell down and sustained injuries, on the right side on his forehead. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot.
8.3 Thereafter, the complainant had gone to his uncle’s house at Behal. On the way, he met Rakesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, Lakhwinder Singh and Shubham Kumar, all residents of Village Behal. The complainant had apprised them about the incident, which had taken place. Then, at about 9 p.m., cousin of the complainant, namely, Shubham, Lakhwinder, Ravinder and Rakesh Kumar, came to Behal Bus stand. In the meanwhile, Goldy, Happy, Sonu and the aforesaid unknown person, alongwith other boys came there and attacked the complainant. Happy S/o Desh Raj, all of a sudden, had taken out the fire arm and started firing upon the complainant. In order to sav
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
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.
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.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty, and pre-trial detention is not justified when trial timelines are uncertain.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
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.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
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.