Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Dashrath Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents
Cr.MP(M) No: 2887 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prikshit Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General

Bail granted in murder case due to hostile key witness rendering prima facie accusation doubtful, prolonged incarceration over four years amid delayed trial, no antecedents, upholding Article 21 personal liberty and speedy trial rights.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail application in murder case - Petitioner in custody for over four years and eight months - Key complainant witness turned hostile, denying presence at scene, consumption of liquor, and assault - Prima facie prosecution story doubtful with no reasonable grounds to believe accusation - Out of 34 prosecution witnesses, 19 examined; trial likely to take considerable time - Delay not attributable to petitioner - No past criminal antecedents - No apprehension of tampering with evidence or fleeing - Prolonged detention infringes personal liberty and right to speedy trial - Bail neither punitive nor preventive - Bail is rule and jail exception - Bail granted subject to stringent conditions. (Paras 8(i), 9, 13, 18)

(B) Bail - Principles - While considering bail, examine accusation gravity, frivolous nature, severity of punishment, antecedents, likelihood of repeating offence, tampering or thwarting justice - Balance personal liberty under Article 21 with societal interests - No detailed evidence examination or merits finding - Incarceration before conviction punitive; mere accusation insufficient for denial. (Paras 6, 6(i), 6(ii))

(C) Speedy Trial - Right under Article 21 not eclipsed by offence nature - Prolonged pretrial detention converts into punishment - Where trial unlikely to conclude soon and incarceration substantial, bail warranted notwithstanding serious accusation. (Paras 10, 13(iii))

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in murder case, in custody since arrest over four years prior. Prosecution alleged assault with iron-embedded rod after liquor consumption en route, per initial complainant statement under Section 154 CrPC. Complainant later deposed denying call to meet, liquor consumption, presence at incident site, seeing body or blood. 19 of 34 witnesses examined; multiple status reports filed showing slow trial progress.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.75,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory trial appearance, no tampering, monthly reporting, no leaving jurisdiction without permission; violation entails automatic cancellation or recall.

Issues: Whether prima facie accusation sustainable given hostile key witness; whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay justify bail despite serious offence; balancing personal liberty with prosecution concerns.

Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie case doubtful as complainant unsupported prosecution version; continued detention on mere accusation punitive, violating Article 21; bail rule applies where no tampering risk, clean record, and speedy trial denied; conditions safeguard justice.

Result: Bail petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. complainant witness turned hostile denying key facts. (Para 4)
2. bail is rule; jail exception balancing liberty. (Para 6)
3. prima facie case doubtful warranting bail. (Para 7)
4. pretrial detention cannot be punitive under article 21. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. no antecedents or tampering risk justifies release. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. prolonged incarceration violates speedy trial right. (Para 13)
7. bail granted with stringent conditions protecting justice. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner, Dashrath Singh, who is in custody since 13.04.2021, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.32 of 2021, dated 11.04.2021, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, [HP].

FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:

2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is averred that an FIR No 32 of 2021, dated 11.04.2021 was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but the petitioner has no role in the aforesaid accusation. It is averred that on 11.04.2021, that one Shri Jittu has telephonically informed to police of Police Station Majra that a scuffle took place at Jogiban and on the basis of alleged information police of Police Station Nahan went to alleged place and telephonically contacted Jittu, upon which Jittu disclosed that he escaped from place of occurrence and his friend Maan Singh was allegedly killed by Dashrath and his dead body of deceased was lying on highway. It is averred that informant Jittu came from Nahan side and identified the dead body of Maan Singh and his statement under Section 154 CrPC was recorded.

2(i). It is averred that petitioner moved an application for regular bail [Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2024], and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2024, [Annexure P-1].

2(ii). It is averred that the bail petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2021 for 4 years and 1 month and prolonged detention and deprivation of speedy trial has curtailed his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that incarceration cannot be preventative nor punitive on the basis of mere accusation, which are yet to be tested and proved. It is averred that there are no past criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. It is undertaken bail petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

In these circumstances, instant application has been filed through his brother, praying for bail in instant case.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. Upon listing of instant bail application and upon issuance of notice, Status Report dated 13.03.2025 was filed. Thereafter a Fresh Status Report dated 09.05.2025 was filed and thereafter Fresh Status Report dated 10.07.2025 was filed showing stage and status of trial. The matter was adjourned on the request of Learned Counsel for petitioner between July to September 2025, when, on 05.09.2025 placing on record the Zimni orders. Mateer was adjourned on couple of occasions but on 31.10.2025, the same was postponed, at joint request of Learned Counsel for the parties, so as to enable him to file Fresh Status Report which was filed on 27.11.2025 and another Status Report dated 05.12.2025 and the matter was heard and was reserved on 05.01.2026. During the course of proceedings, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the Zimni orders and statements of witness recorded by Learned Trial Court, to indicate that delay in trial was not attributable to the bail petitioner.

3(i). The Status Reports dated 13.03.2025, 09.05.2025, 10.07.2025, 27.11.2025 and 05.12.2025 being pari-materia, narrate the entire sequence of events leading to the incident, registration of FIR and Investigation cond