IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:17056
Cr.MP(M) No.473 of 2026
Decided on: 14.05.2026
Surender Singh … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
For the petitioner: Mr. Sative Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 14, 2026
(Rishi)
2026:HHC:17056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.473 of 2026 Decided on: 14.05.2026
Surender Singh … Petitioner Versus H
State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner: Mr. Sative Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
grant ofC regular bail in FIR No.101 of 2021, dated 04.04.2021, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
g2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ithe petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case, as a result whereof, he is languishing in custody for the last more than five years. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was taken in custody on 04.04.2021 and since then, he has remained in such custody, earlier in police custody and now in judicial custody. Learned Counsel also submitted that the prosecution, in all, has cited 50 witnesses (39 witnesses in the main Challan and 11 witnesses in the Supplementary Challan). Out of these 50 witnesses, 19 stand
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:28:48 :::CIS
##PAGE2##2
2026:HHC:17056 examined and now for recording the statements of some of the remaining witnesses, dates have been fixed for 15.09.2P026 onwards. He thus, submitted that as there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within some reasonable time and further, as the petitioner has already been in custody for more than 5 years, interest of justice demands that he be released on bail. Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and besides this FIR, there its no other FIR registered against him. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the event of bail being granted to the petitioner, he shall abide by all the terms and
conditions which this Court may be pleased to impose upon him.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that as the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is both grave and henious, therefore, he is not entitled for any bail. He submitted that earlier applications filed by the
Hpetitioner also stand rejected on merit. He further submitted that if released on bail, there is a possibility that the petitioner may try to influence, threaten, or win over the remaining witnesses. Therefore, as the allegation against the petitioner is a grave one of killing his
wife, the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the petition as well as documents appended therewith and the latest
Status Report filed by the State.
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:28:48 :::CIS
##PAGE3##3
2026:HHC:17056
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused the death of his wife intentionally by driving the vehPicle, in which they were seated, down the hill purposely with the intent of doing away with the life of his wife. The FIR is dated 04.04.2021 and the
petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2021.
6. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him, of course, is a matter of trial. It is also a matter of record that earlier bail pettitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by this Court as also by the Court of learned Sessions Judge on merit. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner as from the date of lodging of the FIR has been in custody
for more than 5 years.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sahil Manoj Machare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7502 of 2026, decided on 17.03.2026, was pleased to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.