Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mridul - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2738 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Ravi Tanta and Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusations.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - Sections 103(1) and 3(5) - Bail application - Petitioner, aged 19, claimed false implication with no evidence for detention - FIR for murder filed, with investigation complete and charge sheet presented - Circumstantial evidence includes DNA evidence linking petitioner to the crime and CCTV footage of accused's movements - For bail, factors like severity of punishment and risk of influencing witnesses considered - Application for bail denied. (Paras 1-21)

(B) Criteria for Bail - Court must evaluate nature of the charge, evidence, severity of punishment, antecedents of the accused, and potential influence on witnesses before granting bail - The court must exercise discretion judiciously and cannot grant bail as a matter of course. (Paras 8-18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused in a murder case where circumstantial evidence and statements suggested possible involvement in the deceased's death, sustained from injuries. The deceased died after a physical altercation, witnessed by the accused.

Findings of Court:
Sufficient prima facie links between the petitioner and the crime exist, rendering the case for bail weak. The seriousness of the charges and the evidence lead the court to deny bail.

Issues: Whether the conditions for granting bail have been met, particularly given the severe nature of the charges involved; the petitioner's claims of innocence; and procedural delays in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The gravity of charges, along with corroborative evidence such as DNA links and surveillance footage, outweighs the petitioner’s arguments for bail, necessitating continued custody.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail for alleged offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court evaluates evidence linking petitioner to crime. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6)
4. bail considerations based on severity of accusations. (Para 8 , 9 , 18)
5. court dismisses petition, denies bail. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 112 of 2024 dated 27.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a young person aged 19 years belonging to a respectable family. He was falsely implicated without any evidence. The investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. F.I.R. No. 111 of 2024, dated 26.10.2024, was registered against the petitioner arising out of the same incident, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, at Rampur Bushahr. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all 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 asserting that the police were informed about the recovery of a dead body on 26.10.2024. The police went to the spot and found a semi-naked dead body at a distance of 100 meters beneath the road in Bangla. The deceased was identified as Santosh Ram. It appeared from the examination of the dead body that the cause of death was a fall from a height, and multiple injuries were present on the dead body. The police conducted the inquest report and recorded the statement of Raju, the roommate of the deceased, who disclosed that he and the deceased had consumed liquor on 25.10.2024. The deceased was heavily intoxicated, and he abused Raju. Raju went away to his room and took the mobile phone of the deceased with him. Subsequently, the dead body was found. Raju disclosed afterwards that he had come to know that Rafi, Mridul (the present petitioner), Rahul and Sachin had given beatings to the deceased. The police interrogated them, and they revealed that they had an altercation with the deceased and had given him beatings. They threw him in the field in an injured condition. They had also taken the liquor from the vend after threatening the salesmen with a gun. The police investigated the matter and took the samples. The dead body was sent to IGMC, Shimla for post-mortem examination. The police checked the mobile phones of the accused and found the photograph of Santosh Ram in an injured condition, which was taken on 25.10.2024. The police seized the mobile phone and the silver Kada, which was used to inflict the injuries. The accused identified the place where they had given beatings to the deceased. The police checked the CCTV footage and found the accused going towards the liquor vend Bahali at 7:37 p.m. and returning towards Bangla Chowk at 7:40 p.m. The accused were again seen going towards the liquor vend at 10:14 p.m. and returning towards Bangla Chowk at 10:27 p.m. Rafi and Mridul were seen going towards the liquor vend at 12:18 a.m. and returning at 12:21 a.m. on 26.10.2024. They were seen coming towards Bangla Chowk on 26.10.2024 at 12:36 a.m. The police checked the mobile phone of Rafi and found a video of twenty seconds, which was sent to his WhatsApp account from the petitioner’s mobile phone at 8:09 p.m. One person was kicking the face and the chest of the deceased. The police checked the petitioner’s mobile phone, but he had deleted the data from his mobile phone. Police seized the mobile phones of Rafi, Mridul and Sachin. Rafi also got recovered a motorcycle. The mater