Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Neelam Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.1773 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pranshul Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Ms. Ranjna Patial
Judicial discretion favors bail for the accused, recognizing presumption of innocence and the lack of substantive evidence for continued custody.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Bail application - The applicant seeks bail during the trial on grounds of innocence and lack of useful purpose in custody. Court considers factors such as completion of investigation, no specific role in the crime, and the necessity of a bail condition to maintain presence at trial. (Paras 1-20)
(B) The court disregards prior arrest in a different case, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the legislative intent to grant bail to women, thus allowing bail application subject to certain conditions. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant Neelam Devi was arrested regarding a FIR involving allegations of violence during a scuffle over property. Accusations include the use of a firearm, with conflicting charges between opposing parties.
Findings of Court:
The applicant's arrest lacks substantiated claims tying her to the purported crime, supporting the notion that further custody will not serve justice.
Issues: Whether the evidence and circumstances justify continued judicial custody or merit bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial discretion is exercised favoring bail, based on the absence of substantive incriminating links to the crime, alongside considerations for a woman's right to pre-trial liberty.
Result: Bail application is allowed, and the applicant is ordered to furnish bond conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under bnss. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. claims of false case and innocence presented. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence of involvement against applicant discussed. (Para 9 , 13) |
| 4. impact of completed investigation on bail decision. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. stronger presumption of innocence for female applicants. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. conditions for bail set forth. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. administrative directions relevant to bail release process. (Para 21 , 22) |
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the applicant : Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S.
Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General.
Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), applicant-Neelam Devi has sought her release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109 , 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. The relief of the bail has been sought on the ground that the applicant has been arrested, in a false case and presently, she is in judicial custody.
3. According to the applicant, she is innocent person and has no connection, whatsoever, with the crime in question. She has termed the case of the prosecution, as highly doubtful and according to her, nothing is to be recovered from her.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation, in the case is completed. All these facts have been pleaded to show that no useful purpose would be served, by keeping her, in judicial custody.
5. In addition to this, she has also stated that the present case is nothing, but, counter blast to the case FIR No.46 of 2025, dated 09.06.2025, registered under Sections 332-C, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS .
6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated
11.07.2025.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
9. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 09.06.2025, an information regarding the scuffle/quarrel had been received in the Police Station, upon which, the then, Incharge Moti Singh, along with other police officials, in order to verify the facts reached at Arki Hospital, where, Vijay Kumar and Mahender Kumar, were found to be admitted for treatment.
9.1. During verification, one Chandni, moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of village Kanderli, Post office Bhararighat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., whereas, Hanuman Nath is their neighbourer and their houses are adjoining to each other.
9.2. According to the complainant, they had fenced their land. On 09.06.2025, Hanuman Nath along with his wife, Neelam and sons Triloki, Raghu, Sibu, who were having sticks, in their hands, came and started removing the fence, upon which, complainant, along with her husband, Vijay had gone to prevent them, from doing so, they had started quarreling with them.
9.3. Her brother-in-law (Devar) namely Mahender Kumar was also beaten by them, due to which, he has sustained injury. Vijay had gone to save him, then, he was also beaten by them and threat
