The court emphasized the severity of the allegations and the necessity of protecting the fairness of the trial process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 1635 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.07.2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 Kushal Singh alias Kushal Samrat .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent- : Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate State General for the respondent/State.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 05 of 2025, dated 27.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109 , 118(1), 126(2), 115(2), and 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.

____________

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution the , petitionerand some other persons were consuming liquor at Buthli Bazar. The petitioner/accused started ab.using the informant, which led to the altercation between him and the informant. The informant tried to leave the spot; however, the petitioner inflicted a blow to the informant’s stomach with a knife. The informant tried to stop the petitioner; however, the petitioner inflicted anotherr blow. The informant sustained injury on the thumb of his right hand. The allegations are false. The petitioner was assaulted by the informant and Yashwant. He filed a complaint before the police, and F.I.R. No. 7 of 2025 dated 28.01.20 25 was registered based on his complaint. The petitioner is innocent, and there is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. He is suffering from various H ailments. The investigation is complete, and the police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Yashwant, Balkrishan, Vicky, and the petitioner were consuming liquor on 26.01.2025 at 9:30 p.m. The petitioner abused the informant, which led to an altercation. The informant tried to leave the spot, but the petition.er stopped him and inflicted a blow on his stomach with a knife. The petitioner again inflicted a blow, and the informant stopped it with his hand. He suffered an injury on his right thumb. The informant was taken to the Hospital, and intimation was given to the police. The police conrducted the investigation and seized the blood-stained soil from the spot. As per the report of the analysis, the DNA in the soil matched the DNA of the informant’s blood. The petitioner was arrested, and he made a disclosu re statement leading to the discovery of the knife. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the knife produced by the petitioner could have caused the injuries sustained by the H informant. The injuries were dangerous to life. The charge-

sheet has been filed before the Court, and the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 30.07.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The informant and Yashwant gave beat.ings to the petitioner, and he had reported the matter to the police. He was also medically examined, but the status report is silent regarding the injuries sustained by him. The circumstances on record do not show that the petitioner had inflicted injury with an intent to murder the rinformant, and the possibility of inflicting the injury in self-defence cannot be ruled out. The police ha