Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Saurabh Patial @ Fandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2448 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajiv Rai, Paresh Sharma
For the Respondent: Jitender Sharma

Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail principles on evidence nature and witness risk.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) and Arms Act - Section 25 - Bail application in case of alleged conspiracy to commit shootout - Prosecution relies on disclosure by arrested shooters implicating petitioner as main conspirator providing weapons and accommodation due to prior enmity and revenge for earlier incident - Petitioner claims false implication; was at different location on incident date; no recovery from possession - Statements of co-accused during investigation inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 Evidence Act - Chargesheet filed citing 54 witnesses; matter listed for charge consideration - Bail granted applying parameters including nature of accusation, evidence quality, risk of repetition or witness tampering. (Paras 10-13)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Principles restated from Supreme Court: consider nature/evidence of charge, punishment severity, witness tampering risk, accused antecedents/behaviour, justice process threat - Discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically; prima facie reasons required. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail after Sessions Judge dismissal. Incident involved armed persons entering courtyard and shooting causing gunshot injuries to three persons. Investigation via hospital information, eyewitness account, medical reports, CCTV, call records led to shooter arrests; their statements implicated petitioner. Multiple prior cross-FIRs due to enmity; petitioner alleged to have arranged shooters for revenge.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; release on bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety, subject to conditions against witness intimidation/influence, trial attendance without adjournments, address reporting, passport surrender, mobile/social media details provision.

Issues: Whether confessional statements of co-accused constitute valid basis for bail denial; application of bail grant parameters to facts including evidence sufficiency and detention justification.

Ratio Decidendi: Co-accused statements to police inadmissible as substantive evidence; cannot sustain custody absent other connecting material like recovery or presence at scene - Detention unjustified post-chargesheet.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. shootout incident amid enmity; petitioner implicated via co-accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims false implication; state fears witness tampering. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail discretion requires considering offence nature, evidence, justice risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. co-accused confessions inadmissible under crpc 162, evidence act 25. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. bail granted for lack of admissible linking evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 58/2025, dated 14.03.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated based on prior enmity with the injured. As per the prosecution, the injured and his son had hired the shooters to kill the petitioner. They shot at the petitioner, and he suffered a bullet injury. An FIR No. 160 of 2024 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. Subsequently, the informant was also injured in a shootout. 7-8 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner because of the enmity and political rivalry. The police arrested the petitioner based on the surmises. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 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 prosecution has filed multiple status reports. As per the latest status report, the police reached the hospital after learning about the shootout. Bambar Thakur was found admitted to the hospital. The Medical Officer certified that he was not fit to make the statement. The police recorded the statement of injured Vishal Chandel, who stated that he was present in the residence of Bambar Thakur on 14.03.2025. Bambar Thakur, Vishal Chandel and 3-4 persons were talking to each other in the courtyard. Four people came into the courtyard, and two of them shot at Bambar Thakur and the other persons. Bambar Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar and the informant Vishal sustained injuries in the incident. Police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The medical examination of the injured showed that they had sustained injuries from a gunshot. The police checked the CCTV footage and call details record and suspected the involvement of Ritesh Sharma, Manjeet Singh Nadda and Rohit Kumar Rana. The police arrested them. They revealed the involvement of the present petitioner. The police associated the petitioner and interrogated him. The police also seized the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. HP-23E-1000. The call details record disclosed that Manjeet Singh Nadda and Rohit Kumar Rana had talked to each other before and after the incident. The location of the other shooters was found at Bilaspur. The petitioner had enmity with Bambar Thakur, and FIR No. 67 of 2024, dated 23.02.2024, was registered against him. Bambar Thakur had engaged the shooters who had shot at the petitioner. The petitioner had engaged the shooters to take revenge. The petitioner had made the arrangement for the stay of the shooters. He had provided the pistol and the cartridges to Aman. The petitioner was present at Rohtak on the date of the incident to mislead the police, and Kuldeep had gone to Haridwar after the incident. The petitioner was the main conspirator. Various FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if he were released on bail. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The prosecution has cited 54 witnesses, and the matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 16.03.2026. Hence, t