Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Kamal Singh alias Tiger - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.2326 of 2025
Decided On : 03-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in serious assault/murder case as CCTV footage, eye-witness identification of presence and participation with co-accused establish prima facie involvement, despite statement contradictions and shared responsibility for trial delay.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application in case under IPC Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109, 34, Arms Act Section 25 and SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3(2)(v-a) - Petitioner’s arrival at spot with co-accused, presence captured in CCTV footage from afternoon till incident, identified by eye-witness, taxi driver and panchayat official - Active participation in assault witnessed - Contradictions/improvements in victim’s statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C., 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and lack of telephonic conversation records with co-accused insufficient to negate prima facie case - Delay in trial attributed to stays, witness unavailability, transfers and objections by accused side - Not fit case for bail. (Paras 10,12,33,40,41)

(B) Cr.P.C. - Sections 154, 161, 164 - Victim’s initial statement in hospital influenced by injuries, shock and medication explained in subsequent detailed statements - First version naming discharged persons does not discredit overall prosecution case. (Paras 6,13,38)

(C) Trial - Delay - Multiple adjournments due to file transfers to High Court, stays, presiding officer transfers, witness medical issues and accused objections to proceed without key witness - Prosecution served summons timely - Accused equally responsible for not seeking vacation of stay - Rejection of bail directing expedited trial not warranted where delay not solely prosecution’s fault. (Paras 21-36)

Facts of the case:
Land sale dispute escalated into prior scuffles at police station. Victims summoned again, en route vehicle blocked by parked vehicle, group emerged from cafe armed with sticks/stones, assaulted occupants causing multiple fractures, lacerations, bruises to both; husband dragged out, beaten severely; wife molested inside vehicle. CCTV showed group including petitioner waiting from afternoon, rushing out on victims’ arrival. One victim succumbed leading to murder charge.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie case against petitioner established from CCTV, eye-witness spotting petitioner with sticks during assault, taxi driver confirmation, mobile tower location - Material sufficient despite cited contradictions and evidentiary gaps - Delay not justifying bail.

Issues: Whether contradictions in victim statements, absence of naming petitioner therein, lack of phone records/conspiracy proof and trial delay entitle petitioner to bail; sufficiency of CCTV/eye-witness evidence for prima facie involvement.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail under Section 483 BNSS not grantable where material including CCTV footage, eye-witness testimony of presence and participation with co-accused establishes prima facie case in serious offences, without final merits assessment; trial delay factors holistically considered.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. grievous injuries from ambush attack on victims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner identified via cctv, eyewitnesses, taxi. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. contradictions alleged; merits for trial evaluation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. trial delay due to stays, not prosecution fault. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35)
5. strong prima facie evidence of planned assault. (Para 33 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. bail denied; prima facie case established. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in case FIR No.239 of 2021, dated 26.08.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3 (1)(r), (s), (w) & 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC & ST Act).

2. Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.

3. Prosecution case is that on 25.8.2021 at about 7:30 P.M. an information was received in Police Station, Kullu that at near Saeubag at Chhururu, some mishap had occurred. This information was transmitted by Police Station staff to QRT team and to SI Kushal Kumar, the then SHO, who was on patrolling. SI Kushal Kumar, out of his Patrolling Party, deputed ASI Vij Ram and Constable Om Parkash to reach Regional Hospital, Kullu to handle the situation on arrival of injured and alongwith remaining team of Patrolling Party he rushed to spot. On reaching near Café Water Edge (hereinafter referred as Café) at Chhururu, he met Constables of QRT Team of Kullu Police who were controlling the traffic on the spot, managing preservation of the spot and were waiting for Ambulance to shift injured persons from spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi and other onlookers were also present on the spot. Paras Ram was lying in katcha portion of road on side of road. He was bleeding badly and at some distance from him, in the middle of the road, his broken vehicle was there. On left front seat thereof injured Yuma Devi was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victim to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. Thereafter on reaching the Hospital, treatment of injured was started in emergency. During treatment, statement of Yuma Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Vij Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Sections 307, 320, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Keeping in view serious condition of victims during night, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, Mandi. As provisions of SC&ST Act were attracted, therefore, in compliance of communication dated 26.8.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, investigation was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu.

5. As per medical record, following major injuries were found on the person of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram.

(a) Yuma Devi.
“1. Open wound left leg-blunt injury.
2. Lacerated wound left leg-blunt injury.
3. Swelling both arms-blunt injury.
4. Swelling distal phalange both arms-blunt injury.
5. Open wound left thumb blunt injury.
6. Fracture both bone forearm-grievous nature.
7. Fracture left leg-grievous nature.”
(b) Paras Ram:
“(1) Lacerated Wound (3x2 CM) over frontal region.
(2) Bruise (variable size) over right and left shoulder 10x3, 2x1 cm, 5x3 cm.
(3) Bruise (10x3 cm) over left shoulder.
(4) Open wound over right forearm (3x1 cm, 3x1 cm, 4x2 cm).
(5) Open wound over left forearm.
(6) Bruise (6x4 cm) over left thigh 9 cm from ASIS.
(7) Bruise (5x3 cm over Right thigh 10 cm from ASIS.
(8) Open wound