The court ruled that severity of the charges and substantial evidence against the petitioner justified denial of bail, emphasizing the need to safeguard the judicial process. Evidence indicated likelihood of repeating offenses if released.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 16 of 2026, dated 21.2.2026, registered at Police Station Ani, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 351(2) and 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.2.2026. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. The informant’s daughter was residing at Shimla and was in a relationship with the petitioner for about three years. The informant did not approve the relationship between his daughter and the petitioner. He lodged a false FIR to get rid of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P., and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report mentioning that the informant, his wife and daughter were sleeping in their rooms on 20.2.2026 at about 10.00 PM. Guddi Devi shouted at around 10.30 pm that the informant’s house had caught fire. The petitioner, Dharam Pal, Pramod Kumar and other villagers tried to extinguish the fire. The informant saw the petitioner driving his vehicle towards Nithar. The timber, hail net and plastic kiltas kept in the room were burnt. The electricity meter and wire were also burnt in the fire. A cloth and a towel were found on the spot, which were smelling of petrol. The petitioner had threatened the informant that he would burn the informant and his family members in case the marriage between the informant’s daughter and the petitioner was not solemnised. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34- 1103 at Luhri Chowk. He made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of one plastic bottle and a lighter. Bhim Singh identified the petitioner as the person who was going to the informant’s house and had consumed liquor with him. FIR No.7/2026 dated 1.2.2026 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken to be correct, do not show the commission of an offence punishable under Section 326(g) of the BNS. The prosecution's story is inherently improbable, and the petitioner was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was seen at the scene of the crime and was apprehended at some distance from the place of the incident. He was also found travelling towards the informant’s house on the date of the inciden