1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS to set aside rejection of police remand and expunge adverse remarks — Police sought custody based on fresh disclosure and witness statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
STATE OF HP – Appellant
Versus
Manav Sharma – Respondent
CRMMO/726/2025
1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS to set aside rejection of police remand and expunge adverse remarks — Police sought custody based on fresh disclosure and witness statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
2. State argued trial court erred in rejecting remand despite fresh material; respondent argued custodial interrogation violates right against self-incrimination. (Para 7 , 27 )
3. Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; investigating agency directed to file fresh remand application; adverse remarks expunged. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
Yes, under Section 187 BNSS, the prayer for police remand still subsists even after initial refusal if fresh material emerges. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
No, the court should not interfere with investigation by refusing remand if fresh material justifies custodial interrogation; it is the police's prerogative to investigate. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
No, adverse remarks must be necessary for adjudication and based on record; otherwise they are liable to be expunged under principles of judicial restraint. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
Virender Singh, Judge.
State has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for setting aside orders, dated 1st July, 2025 and 4th July, 2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case FIR No. 97/2025, dated 13th June, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 299 , 132, 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 351 (2), 115 (2), 121 (1), 109, 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. By way of the present petition, the following relief has been sought for:
“In view of the foregoing facts, it is humbly prayed that the orders dated 01.07.2025 and 04.07.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC Nahan, in FIR No. 97/2025 PS Majra be set aside and to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said orders against the SHO, PS Majra, and the Investigating Officer; with further prayer to grant police custody (remand) of accused Manav Sharma for a period as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary in light of the fresh material; and pass such further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
3. According to the petitioner, during the investigation of the FIR in question, one of the co-accused Raman Kumar made a disclosure statement, regarding recovery of weapons, including gandasi and sword and revealed that the gandasi was supplied to him by accused- Manav Sharma (respondent). In this regard, copy of the disclosure statement has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-1.
4. On the basis of the said information, the police moved a remand application, dated 1st July, 2025, seeking three days’ custody of respondent-Manav Sharma, however, the said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, on 1st July, 2025, observing that the statement of co-accused was insufficient to grant remand, in the absence of any material and no new circumstance or change of circumstances has been mentioned, in the remand application.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the course of investigation, one independent witness came forward, giving a statement, under Section 180 of the BNSS, confirming that respondent-Manav Sharma had supplied weapons to the rioters. The statement of the said witness has also been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-4.
6. As such, according to the petitioner, fresh application was moved before the learned trial Court, which was again heard and dismissed on 4th July, 2025. Not only this, the learned trial Court has also made certain adverse remarks against the SHO by branding the investigation as biased, malafide, reprehensible and directed the Director General of Police to take action.
7. The orders are stated to be not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the statement of independent witness was recorded only after 1st July, 2025, and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidentiary value of the material, so collected, during the investigation.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for.
9. Alongwith the petition, the confessional statement, dated 30th June, 2025, made by one Raman Kumar, under Section 23 (2) of the Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSA’) has also been placed on record, in which, said Raman Kumar has allegedly confessed that on 13th June, 2025, at Majra, during the day time, Manav Sharma handed over him gandasi, after taking out the same from the place, where there were a number of trees, and after inflicting the injury on the police official, he threw the same at Kiratpur and that he can get the same recovered.
10. The remand application, dated 1st July, 2025; statement of Kulwinder Singh @ Shenty, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, on 2n
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top