IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1625 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.8.2025 Date of Decision: 20.08.2025.

Gorakh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh t ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jiwan Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 50 of 2024, dated 19.9.2024, registered at Police Station Mcleodganj, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section

118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner caused injury to the victim on her neck with a knife.

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

The police have filed the charge sheet, and custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the informant, Rekha (the victim), and the petitioner were serving in the Gangnam Korean Hotel, Mcleodganj. The informant and other staff members were closing the hotel on 18.9.2024, at around 10.20 PM. The petition er picked up a knife and slashed Rekha’s neck. She was taken to the hospital. Intimation was given to the police. The police reached the hospital and recorded the informant’s statement. The police arrested the petitioner. Blood stains were found on his clothes. The CCTV footage was checked, and it was found that the petitioner had pushed Rekha and slashed her neck with the knife. The police seized the CCTV footage. The case property was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL). A report of analysis was issued stating that the DNA profile obtained from the knife/dagger matched the victim’s DNA profile. The DNA profile obtained from the blood lifted on the spot matched the DNA profile of the victim and the petitioner. The DNA profile obtained from the T-shirt and Chappal matched the petitioner’s DNA profile. The charge sheet was presented before the Court. The matter was listed on 13.8.2025 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

4. I have heard Mr. Jiwan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Jiwan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to prima facie conclude the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS. The nature of the injury was not found to be dangerous to life. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had slashed the victim’s neck by using a dagger. It is not essential to cause injury to attract Section 109 of the BNS. It is sufÏcient that the circumstances are such that if the death is caused, the person would be guilty of murder. In the present case, the use of a knife (a sharp-edged weapon) on the neck (a vital part) shows that had the death been caused, the petitioner would have been guilty of murder. Therefore, all the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS are satisfied. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on baiul. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed. o

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein