Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Guddu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 23 of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate, vice Mr. George, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in murder case as driving co-accused to scene and fleeing infers common intention under Section 34 IPC despite no overt act, given offence gravity and punishment severity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 324, 120B read with Section 34 - Bail application in case of murder and attempt to murder - Petitioner drove vehicle bringing co-accused to spot where stabbing caused one death and injury to another - Attempted to speed away post-incident - Prima facie common intention inferred from bringing co-accused to scene and facilitating escape - Even inaction or standing by suffices for liability - Bail denied due to gravity of offence, nature of evidence and severity of punishment which could be death. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Bail jurisdiction - Principles - Considerations include nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, risk of absconding, witness tampering or thwarting justice - Normal rule is bail not jail, except in heinous crimes - Bail court cannot appreciate witness statements or evidence merits, especially post-trial commencement in serious offences - Delay in trial or incarceration period alone not ground for bail in murder cases. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20)

(C) Common intention - Inferred from totality of circumstances like prior concert, manner of arrival, armed co-accused, post-offence conduct of fleeing together - Direct evidence unnecessary; conduct speaks. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case under Sections 302, 307, 324, 120B IPC. Prosecution alleged petitioner drove vehicle with co-accused who alighted, stabbed victim fatally in neck and injured informant; petitioner sped away but was stopped by public; one declared dead on arrival at hospital, other had sharp injuries; trial ongoing with 17 of 35 witnesses examined; petitioner claimed no knowledge of weapon, no overt act attributed by examined witnesses.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie petitioner involved via common intention by transporting co-accused and fleeing; not entitled to bail considering offence seriousness.

Issues: Whether petitioner's role limited to driving without knowledge or common intention; if trial delay or lack of overt act in witness statements warrants bail; propriety of assessing evidence at bail stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Common intention under Section 34 established prima facie by facilitation through vehicle and escape attempt; bail declined in capital punishment offences where conduct indicates pre-arranged plan; courts must weigh heinousness over trial delays or partial evidence appreciation.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner drove co-accused to fatal stabbing scene. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on role, evidence, delay in trial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. bail judiciously based on offence gravity, evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. driving to scene infers section 34 intention. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. murder punishment severity bars bail grant. (Para 15 , 16)
6. delay insufficient ground for murder bail. (Para 17)
7. bail courts avoid witness evidence assessment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. bail petition dismissed without trial prejudice. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 157 of 2023, dated 10.12.2023, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Narinder Kumar had visited Village Kaluga to attend the wedding ceremony of Ashu Kumar on 9.12.2023. At about 9.40 PM, he, Ashok Kumar alias Ravi, Anil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were standing on the road. A car bearing registration No. HP-01-3486, being driven by Guddu Ram (the petitioner), came to the spot. Sunil Kumar was sitting with him. Sunil Kumar got out of the car and inquired about Ravi. Ravi identified himself. Sunil Kumar stabbed Ravi in the neck. Informant shouted that Ravi had been killed. When the informant, Narinder Kumar, tried to pick up Ravi, Sunil Kumar also stabbed him. Guddu Ram and Sunil Kumar fled away from the spot in the vehicle, but they were stopped by the people. The injured were carried in the vehicle to the hospital. The Medical Officer declared Ravi as brought dead. The police registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 34 witnesses, out of whom 17 have been examined. 07 more witnesses have been cited in the supplementary charge sheet. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had no knowledge that Sunil Kumar was carrying a sharp-edged weapon. Informant Narinder Kumar and eyewitnesses Anil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar have already been examined. They did not attribute any overt act to the petitioner. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by a filing status report asserting that the informant made a statement to the police that he had visited Village Kaloga on 9.12.2023, at about 3.30 PM to attend Ashu’s marriage. He, Ashok Kumar, Anil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were standing on the road, preparing for their departure. The informant told the other persons that he would drop them off on a motorcycle one by one. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-3486 came to the spot. Petitioner Guddu Ram was driving the vehicle. Bablu alias Sunil Kumar was sitting in the vehicle. He got out of the vehicle and inquired about Ravi. Ravi identified himself, and Bablu stabbed him in the neck. He fell. The informant tried to pick him up, but Bablu stabbed him in the back. Petitioner and Bablu tried to speed away in their vehicle, but they were stopped, and the injured were taken to the hospital. Ravi Kumar was declared dead. Informant Narinder Kumar had sustained sharp injuries. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused Sunil Kumar alias Bablu and seized various articles. Bablu alias Sunil Kumar got a blood-stained knife recovered. The cause of death was a stab wound, causing profuse blood loss from a major blood vessel of neck. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses, out of whom the statements of 17 witnesses have been recorded, and the statements of 18 witnesses are to be recorded. The matter was listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,