IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2794 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of DecisionH:23.01.2026 Ravi @ Mirgi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approvoed for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Sipahiya, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Ms Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 20 of 2024, dated 02.03.2024, registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024. He has been in judicial custody since 07.03.2024.

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

The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 19.01.2026. The charge sheet mentions that co-accused Raghav @. Radhey had assaulted the deceased Dinesh Kumar. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he had telephoned some persons to play cards. He was present in the room with the co-accused and the deceased, and he remained with the co-accused Raghav @ Radhey after the incidentr. No overt act of assault was attributed to the petitioner. The important prosecution witnesses have been examined. Bail is the rule, and the jail is the exception, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. None of the fa mily members of the petitioner had any knowledge of the incident. Shiv Kumar (PW-2) was not present on the spot at the time of the incident. Gorakh Ram (PW-3) deposed about the Hdiscovery of the dead body. Jagdish (PW-5) and Vikas Kumar (PW-6) have denied the incriminating portion of their earlier statements. The petitioner cooperated with the police during the investigation. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Therefore, 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 an intimation that a person was lying unconscious on the upper floor of the .boot shop in Mehre Bazaar. The police went to the spot to verify the information and found the dead body of Dinesh on the spot. A post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. Nobody suspected any foul play, and the police conducted the proceedings under Sectrion 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased filed an application before the police stating that Kamlesh had told him that Dinesh was not picking up the mobile phone. He found afterwards that Dinesh had died. He co nducted the inquiry and found that Shiv Kumar, Dilkhush and Arjun were present with Dinesh. The death of Dinesh was not natural, and it appeared that all of them had killed Dinesh.

HThey were also found missing after the incident. The police investigated the matter and found that the petitioner Ravi had called Raghav, Dinesh, Jagdish and Vikas to play cards. They went to Shiv's room. Radhey, Arjun and Arun also joined them at 8:50 pm. Arun left for his home. Arjun and Raghav went to Shiv Kumar’s room. Dilkhush also reached the room. They played cards till 10:15/10:30 pm. An interruption was caused by Radhey and Vikas, who were asked to leave the room. Ravi, Dinesh and Jagdish left the room, whereas Arjun, Arun, Dinesh and Dilkhush remained in the room. Radhey left the ro.om. Jagdish accompanied his cousin Vinod. Ravi, Dinesh, Jagdish and Vinod returned to the room. Dilkhush went to the washroom, and Raghav waited for him. Dinesh, Ravi, Jagdish, Arun and Arjun started playing cards. Raghav entered the room armed with a glass bottle. Vinod left thre room. Raghav demanded money from Dinesh and hit him with a glass bottle. Di