Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rajandeep @ Raja – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 24 of 2026
Decided On : 11-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anirudh Sharma
For the Respondent: Prashant Sen

Disposal of body believed lifeless after overdose not culpable homicide or murder; intention assessed by accused's belief. Bail granted as no prima facie murder case.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 137(2), 105 and 238 - Bail application - Petitioner allegedly sent voice recording admitting throwing deceased into canal after drug overdose; during interrogation, stated deceased unconscious with no palpable pulse, threw body in fear - Postmortem: asphyxia secondary to drowning, multiple drugs detected - Even assuming prosecution case true, not prima facie murder as disposal of believed lifeless body not culpable homicide per precedents - Petitioner liable at best for culpable homicide not amounting to murder or nothing if self-overdose - Charge-sheet filed, witnesses partly recorded, no justification for pre-trial detention - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 2, 3, 10-18)

(B) Culpable homicide - Act directed at believed lifeless body not culpable homicide - Intention judged by what accused supposed circumstances to be, not actual - Precedents: Striking blow rendering senseless, then hanging/throwing/burning to fake suicide not murder/culpable homicide for secondary act. (Paras 11-15)

(C) Bail - Principles: Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, tampering risk, antecedents, public interest - No detailed evidence examination but prima facie reasons required - Judicious discretion, not mechanical. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case registered for offences under Sections 137(2), 105, 238 BNS; informant reported missing person last seen with petitioner; voice recording of admission; body recovered from canal; drugs in blood; petitioner claimed overdose led to unconsciousness, believed dead, disposed body.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; released on bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety; conditions imposed including no witness intimidation, attend trial, report address changes, surrender passport.

Issues: Whether allegations prima facie disclose murder; validity of pre-trial detention post charge-sheet.

Ratio Decidendi: Disposal of body believed lifeless due to overdose not culpable homicide/murder; liability only for prior acts if any; bail parameters applied, no flight risk, roots in society.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. drug overdose incident; body thrown in canal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments heard; submissions considered. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. sc bail parameters: offence nature, evidence, risks. (Para 8 , 9)
4. believed deceased dead from overdose; disposed body. (Para 10)
5. no culpable homicide if acting on believed lifeless body. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. no prima facie murder; at best culpable homicide. (Para 15 , 16)
7. no detention justification; low flight risk. (Para 17 , 18)
8. bail granted with strict conditions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 103 of 2025, dated 17.04.2025, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 105 and 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution's case, the informant made a missing person complaint about his brother Gurvinder Singh on 16.04.2025. Gurvinder Singh was accompanying Rajandeep @ Raja (petitioner) on 15.04.2025 at about 5:00 PM. The petitioner had also sent a WhatsApp voice recording admitting that he had thrown the deceased in a canal after a drug overdose. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner on 17.04.2025. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 04.02.2026. 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 Abhishek Saini made a missing report to the police on 16.04.2025, stating that Gurvinder Singh was missing since the previous night. He was last seen with his friend Rajandeep @ Raja (petitioner) at about 5:00 PM. Raja sent a WhatsApp voice recording that he had thrown Gurvinder into a canal after Gurvinder had taken an overdose of the drugs. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. Subsequently, the dead body of Gurvinder was found at Saleempur, Bhakra main line canal. The police seized the dead body, and as per the report of postmortem examination, the deceased died due to asphyxia secondary to ante mortem wet drowning, in a case where methamphetamine, morphine, oxycodone, amphetamine and pregabalin were detected in the blood of the deceased. The police arrested the petitioner, who revealed during the interrogation that Gurvinder Singh had injected Heroin after which he became unconscious. His pulse was not palpable, and the petitioner believed him to be dead. He threw him into the canal in a state of fear. The police filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The statements of three witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of witnesses on 03.06.2026. The result from SFSL is awaited regarding the mobile phone of the petitioner and witness Balvinder Singh @ Bunty. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The allegations made in the status report do not disclose the commission of murder. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was last seen with the deceased, and he has to explain the circumstances leading to the death. The plea taken by him that he had thrown Gurvinder Singh into the canal, believing him to be dead, is yet to be proved. The allegat