IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2807 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decision:23.01.2026 Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner : Mr Karan Kapoor, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail in F.I.R. No. 18 of 2022, dated 16.01.2022, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was the neighbour of the deceased. The petitioner

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

and the deceased consumed liquor on 15.01.2022 at about 5:00 PM. The deceased did not return to his room. The informant went to the petitioner’s room and found that the deceased was lying under the cot. The informant checked him and found him to be dead. The matter was reported to the police, who registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The charge-sheet was filed on 30.03.2022. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses in the main challan and four witnesses in the supplementary charge- sheet. The petitioner has been behind bars for more than 3 years and 10 months. The trial is not likely to conclude soon, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner had approached this Court for bail earlier, and his bail petition was dismissed on the ground that the learned trial Court had summoned the remaining witnesses and the trial was likely to conclude soon; however, the statements of only two witnesses were recorded after the passing of the order. The matter is listed on 19.03.2026, when two witnesses have been summoned. The trial is not likely to conclude soon at this pace; 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 information that one person was lying dead in a room. The police visited the spot. The informant made a statement to the police that she was married to Rahul Kumar Yadav (since deceased). Rahul was residing with his family. Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner) was residing in the adjacent room. The petitioner, Sanjay, called Rahul to his room. They consumed liquor. The informant called the petitioner, who told her that Rahul would come after some time. When Rahul did not return till 10.00 PM, the informant went to the petitioner’s room. She asked about Rahul, and the petitioner replied that he had left the room; however, she found that her husband was lying under the cot in the room, and he was covered with a bed sheet. She checked her husband and found him dead. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The cause of death was asphyxia secondary to compression of the neck, consistent with antemortem throttling as per the autopsy report. As per the report of analysis, 270.55% proof alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom five witnesses have been examined, and the statements of 16 witnesses are yet to be recorded. The matter is listed for recording the statement of two witnesses on 23.03.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The trial is not likely to conclude soon, because only two witnesses have been summoned by the le