IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2939 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.1.2026 Date of Decision: 23.1.2026.

Kushal Singh alias Kushal Samrat ...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 : Mr Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Kush h Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 5 of 2025, dated 27.1.2025, registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2) and 115(2) 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, according to the prosecution, the petitioner Kushal Singh, informant Rajiv, Yashwant, Bal Krishan and Vicky Sharma were consuming liquor at Butthli. An altercation occurred between them, and the petitioner inflicted a knife blow to the informant’s stomach and his right-hand thumb. These allegations are false. The petitioner has also filed a complaint against Rajiv and Yashwant, and an FIR No. 7 of 20u25, dated 28.1.2025, was registered against them. The petitoioner had earlier filed a regular bail petition before thiCs Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner is innocent and was not involved in the commission of any offence. The petitioner is suffering from various ailments and he requires regular medical check-ups. The police have completed Hthe investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Rajiv, Yashwant, Balkrishan, Vicky, and the petitioner were consuming liquor on 26.01.2025 at 9:30 p.m. The petitioner abused the informant, which led to an altercation. The informant tried to leave the spot, but the petitioner stopped him and inflicted a blow on his stomach with a knife. The petitioner again inflicted a blow, which the informant tried to stop with his hand. He suffered an injury on his right thumb. The informant was taken to the Hospital, and an intimation was given to the police. The police conducted the investigation and seized the blood-stained soil from the spot. As per the report of the analysis, the DNA in the soil matched the DNA of the informanut’s blood. The petitioner was arrested, and he made a discloosure statement leading to the discovery of the knife. AsC per the report of the Medical Officer, the knife produced by the petitioner could have caused the injuries sustained by the informant. The injuries were dangerous to life. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 28.6.2025. Hence, Hthe status report.

4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had also registered an FIR against the informant and another person. The petitioner’s version that he had acted in self-defence is highly probable. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequ ent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstanc