IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2755 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.1.2026 Date of Decision: 23.1.2026.

Tushar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh t ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary & Panku Chaudhary, Advocates For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Bhamdev, IO, PS Manali, District Kullu, HP.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 16 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025, registered at Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

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

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant, Mayank Thakur, made a complaint to the police, which led to the registration of the FIR. There is no eyewitness in the case. The prosecution has cited 33 witnesses, out of whom only one witness has been examined. The police have failed to collect sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, andu no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the peotitioner in custody. The petitioner belongs to a respectablCe family and he would abide by 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 informant, Mayank Thakur, was discharging his duties at Manu Rangshala, where a cultural programme was being organised on 22.1.2025 at about 8.00 PM. The people were dancing, when the informant heard some commotion. He went to the spot and found that some people were quarrelling. One person was bleeding. The informant caught hold of the injured person, which the other persons went away. The injured person was taken to the hospital, and he identified himself as Daksh Thakur. He subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The postmortem examination of Daksh Thakur was conducted, and it was found that the cause of death was hemorrhagic hypodermic shock as a result of an ante-mortem incised wound leading to cardiopulmonary shock. The police checked the CCTV footage and found five peopleu leaving Manu Rangshala between 8.04 and 8.05 PM. One poerson was identified as Tushar Sharma (the present peCtitioner). The police arrested him. He had sustained an injury on his right hand. His clothes were blood-stained, and he was wearing the same clothes as seen in the CCTV Footage. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the clothes. The Hinvolvement of other persons was not found. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had an altercation with the deceased, he inflicted injuries to the victim, Daksh Thakur, by means of a broken bottle. The DNA profile of the deceased was found on the petitioner’s shoes. The petitioner’s photograph was found to be similar to the person shown in the CCTV footage, but no definite opinion could be given. The clothes in the photograph were similar to the clothes in the CCTV Footage.

As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, injuries sustained by Daksh Thakur could have been caused by means of a broken bottle. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 20.4.2025 and a supplementary charge on 5.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There