Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Hardeep Rana @ Honey - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 2723 of 2025
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General.

Bail denied in double homicide case due to applicant's continuous involvement from scuffle to identifying victims for shooter, corroborated by eyewitness and CCTV, offence gravity, and tampering risk pending trial.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 103(1), 109(1), 190, 191(3), 61(2) - Arms Act - Sections 25 & 27 - Bail application during pendency of trial in case involving double homicide by firing arising from land dispute - Applicant implicated from initial scuffle to identifying victims to shooter as per eyewitness statement - CCTV footage shows presence near shooter during firing - Charge-sheet filed citing 68 witnesses - Investigation complete including recoveries, postmortem, ballistic reports awaited - Previous bail application dismissed - Bail denied considering seriousness of offence, continuous involvement, potential to influence witnesses, undue delay in trial not sufficient ground, plea of alibi to be tested at trial, avoiding detailed merits discussion to prevent prejudice, and preventing wrong signal to society. (Paras 13,14,15,16,17)

Facts of the case:
Initial scuffle over land dispute escalated to firing incident resulting in two deaths. Eyewitness statement under relevant provision implicates applicant in fight and pointing out victims to shooter who fired. CCTV footage captures movements aligning with presence at key moments. Applicant claims innocence, absence at firing spot, reliance on CCTV to support alibi. Police status report details evidence collection, arrests, recoveries of weapons and vehicles.

Findings of Court:
Involvement established from FIR to charge-sheet. Seriousness of offence paramount. Apprehensions of witness coercion and absconding valid. Undertakings insufficient.

Issues: Whether applicant entitled to bail pending trial given attributed role, evidence of presence, nature of offence, and stage of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In heinous crimes like double homicide, bail not granted where applicant present throughout, identifies targets per eyewitness corroborated by CCTV; alibi for trial; merits not delved into at bail stage; societal impact and investigation integrity considered. (Paras 14,15,16,17) Result : Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant claims innocence, cctv alibi, seeks bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. evidence from witnesses, cctv implicates applicant. (Para 10)
3. continuous involvement from fir to chargesheet. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. serious offence, unproven alibi bar bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. bail denied; no prejudice to trial. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant Hardeep Rana @ Honey has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.187 of 2024, dated 23.12.2024, registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 190, 191(3), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.

3. According to the applicant, he has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime in question. Presently, applicant is stated to be in judicial custody. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and the police has filed the charge sheet, in which, total 68 witnesses, have been cited, as prosecution witnesses.

4. The applicant had earlier tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., which was dismissed on 07.10.2025.

5. Highlighting the fact that, as per the evidence, collected by the police, especially, the CCTV footage, it has been found that the applicant had left his shop at 11:37 AM, after the first incident of fight. Thereafter, he came back to the shop at 12:01 PM, and parked the scooty near his shop and went to the shop to open the same. In the meanwhile, accused Deshdeep came there, in his car and stopped the car and took the rifle from the car. The applicant had tried to stop him, but, he ran away. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the CCTV footage, obtained by the police, during the investigation.

6. It is the further case of the applicant that the spot is at a distance of 100 meters, away from his shop and the applicant, at the time of alleged firing, was in his shop.

7. According to the applicant, no role is stated to be attributed to the applicant to connect him with the crime, in question. The bail has also been sought on the ground that there is undue delay in the trial.

8. Apart from this, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

10. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.12.2024, MC Pandoga, telephonically informed the police of Police Post Pandoga, that there is incident of firing in village Bhadsali, upon which, HC Sunny Sharma, Sub Inspector, Chetan Singh I.O., Police Post Haroli, along with other police officials, had proceeded towards Regional Hospital, Una, as the injured persons, in the firing incident, were brought for treatment to Regional Hospital, Una. In Regional Hospital, Una, the Medical Officer had disclosed that the injured persons, in the said shooting incident, namely; Ravinder Kumar, son of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar son of Jagir Singh, were brought dead and their dead bodies have been kept in mortuary.
10.1. In Regional Hospital, Una, eye-witness, Jasvinder Singh son of Satnaam Singh, made a statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, before SI/IO Chetan Singh, disclosing therein, that he is resident of village Pandoga, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P., and agriculturist by profession. Ravinder Kumar son of Sanjeev Kumar, resident of village Bhadsali is his friend.
10.2. On 23.12.2024, at about 10:30