IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P.(M) No.2687 of 2025

Reserved on: 02.12.2025

Decided on: 12.12.2025

Darshan Singh ...…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the PeCtitioner: Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

regular bail in F.I.R. No. 126/2025 dated 18.04.2025, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 & 61(2)

of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He is a business person and has deep roots in society. He has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2025. The

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No

allegations of murder attributed to him are wholly incorrect.

The petitioner did not murder any person; rather, he had. tried to save the deceased from the co-accused. The role attributed to the petitioner, even if accepted at face valuHe, does not satisfy the conditions laid down under Sections 61(2) and 103 of BNS. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The investigation is complete, and the challan has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that 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 police received a telephonic information on 17.04.2025 that a person had committed suicide at Dattowal. The police went to the spot and found that the dead body had been taken to Kiratpur Sahib for cremation. The police went to Kiratpur Sahib and seized the dead body. Multiple injuries were found on the dead body. The police suspected foul play in the death. The wife of the deceased revealed during the enquiry that her husband had consumed liquor on 16.04.2025 at 4:00 p.m. and became violent. She and her children went away from the house. They returned at 10:00 p.m. and found that the deceased was sleeping on the floor. She did not disturb him. When he did not wake in the morning, she informed Sasnjay Kumar. He. filed an application on 18.04.2025 stating that his brother Satbeer (since deceased), his wife Hansi, and the chilHdren were residing at Dattowal. Hansi had an illicit relationship with the petitioner, Darshan Singh. Satbeer objected to the relationship. Darshan Singh, Hansi, Parvesh, and some other persons had murdered Satbeer. Sanjay tried to inform the police, but Hansi Devi and Darshan objected to it. They attempted to cremate the dead body, but Sanjay informed the police. The postmortem report revealed that the death was caused by the cumulative effect of asphyxi a sewndary to ligature strangulation of the neck and sustained electrocution injuries. The police arrested Hansi Devi, who led the police to the room where the murder was committed. The police seized the pillow covers and the bed sheet. She also produced the clothes worn by Satbeer and her dupatta, which was used to strangulate the deceased. The call detail record revealed that Hansi Devi and Darshan Singh were talking to each other. The CCTV footage showed that a Maruti Desire had stopped near the building at 7:02 p.m. Two people and a woman got out of the car and went inside the building. One person returned after some time and again went back to the building. The person took away the vehicle after some time.

Abhishek and Ishant Sharma identified the vehicle in the .CCTV footage as the one owned by the petitioner, Darshan Singh. Ishant Sharma also identified Hansi DevHi. He identified Darshan Singh as the person who had gotten out of the car. The police interrogated Hansi Devi. The pol