Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ayush Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 292 of 2026
Decided On : 24-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections bailable.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 117(2) - Bail petition - Allegation of pushing victim at religious gathering causing fall, head injury and death six days later due to blunt force complications - No blood stains or matching biological evidence at spot - Even if allegations true, no prima facie case under Section 103(1) as knowledge of death likelihood not attributable, following precedents on rare fatal outcomes from falls - Added sections bailable - Further detention unjustified - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 11-14)

(B) Bail - Principles - Normal rule bail, not jail, absent circumstances like flight risk, witness tampering or justice obstruction - Factors: accusation nature, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, character - Flight apprehension due to renunciation status addressed by conditions - Enmity motive does not elevate offence without knowledge. (Paras 8-10, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner allegedly pushed victim at gathering; victim fell, sustained head injury, treated but died later. Prosecution cited family land dispute motive with victim as union advisor. Petitioner denied involvement, cited monk status since prior years, no criminal history. Investigation found no direct physical evidence linking petitioner.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on bail bonds with sureties, subject to conditions against witness influence, trial attendance, address reporting, passport surrender and contact updates.

Issues: Whether allegations prima facie disclose non-bailable offence under Section 103(1); sufficiency of motive and monk status to deny bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Push causing fall and rare fatal head injury does not impute knowledge requisite for gravest culpability; bailable sections added; bail discretion exercised judiciously per Supreme Court guidelines on liberty and justice balance.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. alleged push at bhandara caused fatal head injury amid family dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims false case; state alleges motive and absconding risk. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail rule unless grave crime or justice thwarting risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. push without knowledge of death not culpable homicide under s.103(1). (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. bail granted with conditions due to bailable additions and weak case. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 02 of 2026, dated 05.01.2026, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2) and 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Rajesh Sharma had attended a Bhandara in the Kutiya of Chetan Giri Baba on 04.01.2026. Ayush @ Vishisht Giri Baba (the petitioner) pushed the informant, who fell and sustained injuries to his head. The victim was taken to AIIMS Bilaspur, where he died on 10.01.2026. The allegations against the petitioner are false. As per the report of the post-mortem examination, the death was caused by the head injury and the complications consequent upon blunt force impact. The allegations, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of the BNS. The prosecution asserted that there was a dispute between the petitioner’s grandmother, Tara Devi and the Sainj Valley Taxi Union. The petitioner has no concern with any dispute, as he has renounced the world in the year 2020 and has become a monk. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it is 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 victim, Rajesh Sharma, made a complaint to the police that he and Ayush @ Vishisht Giri Baba (the petitioner) had attended a Bhandara in the Kutiya of Chetan Giri Baba at Sainj on 04.01.2026. The petitioner pushed the victim, and he sustained an injury to the head. An action should be taken against the petitioner. The medical examination of the victim was conducted, and grievous injury was found. The police investigated the matter. The victim subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 10.01.2026. As per the report of post-mortem examination, the death was caused by a head injury and complications consequent upon blunt force impact. No other FIR was registered against the petitioner. The experts from RFSL visited the spot but did not find any blood stains or other evidence on the spot. The petitioner subsequently identified the spot where the incident had taken place. He also produced the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident. The petitioner’s DNA was not found on the clothes of the deceased. The victim was an advisor of the Sainj Valley Taxi Union. The petitioners' grandmother, Tara Devi and the Sainj Valley Taxi Union had a dispute over the land. FIR’s were registered in the year 2020 at the instance of Sainj Valley Taxi Union and Tara Devi. A civil dispute was also pending before the learned Civil Judge, Banjaar. The petitioner had deliberately attacked the victim. The petitioner has become a monk, and he would not attend the hearing if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Even if the allegations of the FIR are considered to be correct, no case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 10