Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Balwinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.M.P(M) No.2642 of 2025
Decided On : 26-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr Karanveer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Bail granted in non-grave forest offences after charge-sheet and 5 months custody, despite prima facie evidence and antecedents, as pre-trial detention not punitive and no further purpose served.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 - Section 303(2) - Indian Forest Act - Sections 41 and 42 - Bail - Offences triable by Magistrate and not grave - Investigation complete with charge-sheet filed - Petitioner in custody for about 5 months - Prima facie material via disclosure statement leading to recovery of saws - Despite criminal antecedents with multiple prior cases some pending, no purpose served by further detention as bail cannot be withheld as punishment - Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds and compliance with conditions including not intimidating witnesses, attending trial, not leaving jurisdiction without intimation, surrendering passport and keeping court informed of contact details. (Paras 12-16)

(B) Bail - Parameters for grant - Nature of accusations, manner of crime commission, gravity of offence, role of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of tampering or repeating offence, likelihood of absconding - Conditions imposed must be reasonable to secure presence and prevent misuse of liberty. (Paras 8-11)

Facts of the case:
Informant discovered 14 trees cut in protected forest area. Vehicles captured on CCTV proceeding to and from spot at night. Mobile data showed communication between numbers linked to accused. Disclosure statements led to recovery of vehicles and saws. Charge-sheet filed after investigation completion. Some co-accused granted bail by Magistrate.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed. Petitioner released on bail bonds of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to specified conditions. Violation empowers prosecution to seek cancellation.

Issues: Whether pre-trial detention justified post charge-sheet in non-grave offences despite prima facie evidence and criminal antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: In non-grave offences triable by Magistrate, with investigation complete and 5 months custody undergone, further detention unwarranted; criminal antecedents cannot justify detention as substitute for punishment.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. illegal felling of 14 khair trees alleged against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments: innocence and co-accused bail vs. antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail parameters: offence nature, antecedents, tampering risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. evidence links petitioner but offences not grave, custody prolonged. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. bail granted with bonds and strict compliance conditions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R No. 28/25, dated 08.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Sansarpur Terrace, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 303 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 (BNS) and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Yudhvir found 14 trees of different species to have been cut by some person on 23.08.2025. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. There is no material against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate granted bail to the co-accused. The majority of 28-29 cases registered against the petitioner have been decided in his favour. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is in judicial custody. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Yudhvir, found 14 Khair trees to have been cut in UPF Jakhuni West. Out of 14 Khair trees 09 scants were taken by the accused and 5 scants were lying on the spot. The police registered the FIR and checked the CCTV footage. A Bolero Neo, bearing registration No. HP-88A-2879 and a Tempo 407 bearing registration No. PB07W1288 were found to be going towards the spot on the intervening night of 23.08.2025 and 24.08.2025 at about 1:00 AM. These vehicles returned at about 3:50 AM. The police checked the mobile data and found that Mobile No XXXX333 issued in the name of Anil Kumar and Mobile No xxxx204 issued in the name of Balwinder were in touch with each other. The police apprehended Balwinder @ Bunty, who revealed that he and other persons had cut the trees and taken the wood in the vehicles. The police arrested the other persons and recovered the vehicles. Balwinder made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of two saws. The other co-accused also made a disclosure statement. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 17.11.2025 after the completion of the investigation. Om Parkash, Rohit and Yadvender are yet to be arrested. The report from RFSL Mandi is awaited. 30 FIR’s were registered against the petitioner, out of which 8 are pending before the Court. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The co-accused have already been released on bail. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences if released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the b