IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. : 2386 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Decided on : 14.11.2025

Rakesh Kumar …Applicant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the applicant : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate

General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial & Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocate General, for the

respondent.

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan,

Advocate for the complainant.

Virender Singh, Judge

Applicant-Rakesh Kumar has filed the present

application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial,

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

in case FIR No.40 of 2024, dated 24.05.2024, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’)

with Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. The incident, in question, is stated to have taken place, all of a sudden, between the two parties, with regard to possession of the land.

3. To buttress his contentions, the applicant has further pleaded that FIR No. 39/24, dated 23.05.2024, was registered, at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar with Police Station, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC, in which, later on, Section 325 IPC was also added.

4. In a nut-shell, it is the case of the applicant that it is a case of free-fight, with regard to a piece of land. Elaborating his stand, the applicant further pleaded that the complainant party had been quarreling with the applicant’s family for the last 15-20 days and claiming the boundary of their field 20 feet away towards the land of the applicant.

5. In this regard, the pendency of the Civil Suit titled as Jeetu @ Ranjeet Singh versus Braham Dass &

Another, has also been relied upon.

6. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation, in the present case, is complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody. It is also the case of the applicant that the complainant party was aggressor and they have attacked upon the applicant and his family members in a pre-planned manner. The applicant, in this regard, also relied upon the CCTV footage, which, according to him, was taken into possession by the Police during the investigation.

7. The applicant has sought the relief of bail, on the ground of parity, as his co-accused, namely Mangla Devi, Kanchana Devi and Bimla Devi, have already been released on bail, by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the said orders have also been assailed before this Court, by way of Cr.MP (M) Nos. 2217, 2218, 2219 of 2024, which were dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2025. Thereafter, co-accused Manoj Kumar has been released by this Court, vide order dated 16.09.2025, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2087 of 2025.

8. Apart from the above, learned counsel 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.

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

10. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.05.2024, one Yuvraj, S/o Rania Ram, informed the police that his father has been beaten by Ranjeet Singh and his family members, due to which, his father has been taken to Hospital at Hamirpur, for treatment. As such, he has requested that action be taken against the said persons.

11. Subsequently, on the information of Yuvraj, the police reached at Medical College and H