SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. 
Sandeep Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2280 of 2025
Decided On : 06-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Ajay Sipahiya, Pankaj Chauhan, Tarun Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Shamra, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail granted as mistaken shooting of hidden person for wild fowl during hunt not murder but bailable rash act; post-mortem body tampering bailable; licensed gun no Arms Act violation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 238 r/w 3(5), 106, 100 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27 - Bail in murder case - Petitioner and co-accused went to forest for hunting carrying gun - Deceased also present armed and inebriated, concealed in bushes - Mistook for wild fowl, shot causing death - Severed head post-mortem, burnt body and head to destroy evidence - Prima facie not culpable homicide amounting to murder (illustration (c) to Section 100) but rash/negligent act under Section 106 (bailable) - Section 238 bailable even for evidence destruction in serious cases - Licensed gun, no violation of Sections 25/27 - Bail granted post charge-sheet, trial likely delayed. (Paras 12-18)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Principles - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment, risk of absconding/tampering, antecedents - Court not to decide merits but prima facie satisfaction - Judicious discretion required, not mechanical. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail after arrest, investigation complete, charge-sheet filed listing 38 witnesses, trial commencement pending - Prosecution version: mistaken shooting during hunt, subsequent body disposal - Petitioner claims no direct evidence, licensed weapon, resident unlikely to abscond.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed - Release on bail with personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety, subject to conditions against witness intimidation, trial attendance, address reporting, passport surrender, contact details.

Issues: Whether prima facie non-bailable offences under Section 103(1), 238 BNS and Sections 25/27 Arms Act made out justifying continued detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Shooting at bushes believing wild fowl present akin to illustration (c) Section 100 - No intent to kill human, liable for committed offence (hunting) plus negligent death, not murder - Legislature made evidence destruction bailable - Licensed weapon use not offence without licensing violation.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. hunting incident: mistaken shooting, body mutilation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), and 238 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2025. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter is listed for consideration on charge on 10.10.2025. The prosecution has cited 38 witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. As per the prosecution, the deceased, Som Dutt alias Sonu, was found missing on 21.01.2025. The police found after the investigation that Sonu, Bhutto and Sandeep Kumar @ Ajay (the present petitioner) had gone to the forest carrying guns. Subsequently, Sonu’s dead body was found. The police arrested the petitioner on 24.01.2025. The grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner. The deceased was armed with a gun and had consumed liquor. The possibility of the deceased shooting himself cannot be ruled out. There is no direct witness to the incident. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Solan, and there is no chance of his absconding. The investigation is complete, and the petitioner cannot tamper with the evidence. The petitioner would abide by 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 deceased Som Dutt alias Sonu had gone to the 'jungle' on 21.01.2025 with a gun of his neighbour Krishan Singh. He did not return. His phone was found to be switched off. The petitioner and another person were also seen going to the 'jungle' carrying a gun. The police registered the FIR and interrogated Bhutto and the petitioner. The petitioner disclosed a cave where the head of the dead body was severed, and the rest of the body was set on fire. He also produced one SBBL, which was seized by the police. He also got recovered a gun concealed in the cow dung. The place where the head was burnt and buried was also identified. A partially burnt dead body without the head was recovered by the police. As per the report, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock secondary to ante-mortem multiple penetrating gunshot wounds to the chest and head region caused by a smooth weapon. Post-mortem decapitation of the head was also found. The quantity of alcohol in the blood of the deceased was found to be 85.82 mg %. The police recovered various other articles.

4. The investigation revealed that Bhutto is posted as a pump operator in a pump installed in the 'jungle'. He and the petitioner went to the 'jungle'. Petitioner had a gun. Som Dutt had also gone to the same 'jungle' earlier, armed with a gun. He had also consumed liquor. The petitioner and Bhutto were searching for a wild animal. The deceased had concealed himself in the bushes. Petitioner and Bhutto mistook him for a wild fowl. Petitioner shot at the bushes where Som Dutt had hidden himself, and Som Dutt died. The petitioner and Bhutto took the dead body, severed its head with a 'darat' and burnt the body. They took the head to another place where it was burnt and buried. The gun residues were found in the gun recovered by the police. Bhutto had called the present petitioner to the 'jungle' for hunting. They were searching for the wild animal. They shot at Som Dutt, who had concealed himself in the bushes mistakenly. Petitioner had accompanied Bhutto. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court. Matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 10.10.2025.

6. I have heard M/s Ajay Sipahiya, Pankaj Chauhan & Tarun Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and M




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top