Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Lovkesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2977 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Chetan Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr Arun Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Bail denied in attempt to murder via hammer blow to head causing fracture; gravity of offence, severe punishment (life imprisonment), and witness tampering risk paramount despite no blood on weapon.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109(1), 126(2), 115(2) and 117(1) - Bail in attempt to murder case - Accused inflicted hammer blow on victim’s head causing temporal cranium fracture - Absence of blood on recovered hammer does not falsify prosecution version at bail stage as victim’s statement prima facie acceptable - Offence punishable with life imprisonment - Gravity of offence and severity of punishment key factors against bail - Normal rule of bail not jail inapplicable to heinous crimes involving vital body part and dangerous weapon. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Bail - Principles for grant - Courts to consider nature of charge, evidence, punishment severity, risk of witness tampering or thwarting justice, accused antecedents - Discretion to be exercised judiciously with prima facie reasons - Detailed evidence appreciation deferred to trial. (Paras 7-10)

Facts of the case:
Victim parked vehicle near home while sifting sand; petitioner demanded vehicle removal and sand transport, refused; threatened windscreen damage with iron hammer, slapped victim, struck head blow causing fracture; FIR registered, investigation led to arrest, charge sheet filed, witnesses to be examined soon.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; accused not entitled to bail.

Issues: Whether bail to be granted in face of prima facie attempt to murder with hammer causing severe head injury, considering lack of blood on weapon and charge sheet filing.

Ratio Decidendi: Hammer blow to skull prima facie constitutes attempt to murder punishable with life imprisonment; prosecution case not weakened by absence of blood on hammer, matter for trial; heinous nature and severe punishment justify denial of bail to prevent justice obstruction.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. hammer assault on victim after sand transport refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims false implication; state stresses heinous offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail guided by offence nature, evidence, tampering risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. head hammer injury prima facie attempt to murder. (Para 11 , 12)
5. severe punishment for attempt to murder bars bail. (Para 13 , 14)
6. bail petition dismissed; observations limited to disposal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 91 of 2025, dated 11.7.2025, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 126(2), 115(2) and 117(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim had parked his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-54C-0421 near his house on 11.7.2025. The accused asked the informant and the victim to transport the sand, but they declined. The accused threatened to damage the windscreen with the hammer if the sand was not transported. The victim tried to stop the accused, but the accused slapped him. The accused inflicted a hammer blow on the victim’s head. The victim was taken to the hospital. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner. The allegations made against him are false. The petitioner 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 asserting that the informant and the victim were sifting sand on 11.7.2025 at about 11.30 am. The victim had parked his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-54C-0421 near his home. The petitioner asked the informant and the victim to remove the vehicle. They told the petitioner to wait for some time. The petitioner also asked them to transport the sand, but they declined. The petitioner took up an iron hammer and threatened to damage the windscreen of the vehicle. The victim went to the vehicle to ask the petitioner not to damage it. The petitioner slapped the victim and inflicted a blow on the victim’s head with a hammer. The victim was taken to the hospital, and the matter was reported to the police. The police investigated the matter and arrested the petitioner. The Medical Officer found a temporal fracture of the cranium. The police recovered the hammer. No blood was detected on the hammer. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 21.2.2026. The matter is listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, on 20.4.2026 and 21.4.2026 for recording the statements of witnesses. The petitioner had committed a heinous offence. He would threaten the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Chetan Thakur, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Chetan Thakkur, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. No blood was found on the hammer stated to have been used by the petitioner, which falsifies the prosecution’s case. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, 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 Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had inflicted a blow on the victim’s head with an iron hammer. The victim suffered a fracture on the head. The nature of the offence is heinous. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the subm