1 2025:HHC:18858 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.912 & 913 of 2025 Reserved on:- 17.06.2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 Cr.MP(M) No.912 of 2025 Subash Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondent ________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No.913 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant(s) : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Rajput Advocate for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as, both the applicants, on 28.04.2025, had surrendered themselves to the custody of this Court and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:18858 ) filed the applications, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS). 2 By surrendering to the custody of this Court, the applicants have sought the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.62 of 2025, dated 07.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 332(c), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), read with Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated in this case, at the instance of respondent No.2(complainant) and have termed the allegations, levelled against them, by respondent No.2, as false and frivolous. 4. It has been averred in the applications that the complainant is inimical towards the applicants, and as such, complainant has filed the false case against them. 5. It is the case of the applicants that applicant Ramesh Kumar is a Government servant and working as Senior Assistant 3 2025:HHC:18858 ) in Block Elementary Education Office, Indora, whereas, applicant-Subash Singh is an agriculturist by profession. 6. It has been mentioned in the applications that no other case has been registered, against the applicants. All these facts have been pleaded to show that they are not having any criminal antecedents. 7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.04.2025, an information was received in the Police Station, Indora, qua the scuffle, upon which, ASI Mohinder Singh, IO, Police Station, Indora, along with other police officials, reached Kathgarh. When, police party reached at the spot, complainant-Puran Chand met them, in an injured condition. He, along with his wife Banso Devi, was brought to Civil Hospital, Indora for treatment, where complainant-Puran Chand moved a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is resident of Kathgarh and some persons had come to kill him in his house, due to which, he sustained injuries. He 4 2025:HHC:18858 ) has named the assailants as Ramesh Pathania and Subash etc., and prayed that action be taken against them. 8.1 As per the further version of the complainant, the incident had taken place on 07.04.2025, between 8:00 to 8:15 PM and in the said incident, his wife has also sustained injuries. He has further got recorded in the complaint that the incident had taken place, in their courtyard. The assailants were laced with sword and sticks. 8.2. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 332(c), 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS and both the injured were medico legally examined. 8.3. On 08.04.2025, at the instance of the complainant, spot was visited and the spot map was prepared. Photographs were also clicked. The Doctor has given the opinion with regard to injuries, allegedly suffered by Banso Devi (wife of the complainant) as simple blunt, whereas, injuries, on the person of complainant-Puran Chand were found to be declared as grievous blunt. As such, Section 117(2) of BNS has been added in this case. 8.4. On 25.04.2025, witness Saurav Jarangal produced a pendrive, which was also taken into possession and the statement of the witness was recorded. 5 2025:HHC:18858 ) 8.5 On the basis of the said statement, Section 3(2) (va) of SC & ST Act, has been added, in this case. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Sanjeev Kumar, SDPO, Indora. 8.6. It has been mentioned in the status report that as per the police record, no other case is found to be registered against the applicants. 8.7. On the basis of the above stand of the police and after perusing the status report, the applicants were ordered to be released on interim bail, vide order dated 28.04.2025. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 06.05.2025. 8.8. On 06.05.2025, police filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that on 30.04.2025, correspondence, regarding the Caste Certificate of the complainant, as well as, accused persons, were made with Tehsildar, Indora. As per the documents, so collected, complainant was found to be from SC category, whereas, accused persons were found to be from General Category. As per the statement of the witness, recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, complainant was beaten only with dandas and it has also been found, during the investigation, that the sword was not used by the accused persons. Since, the accused persons could not get the dandas recovered, as such, Section 238 of the BNSS has been added in this case. 6 2025:HHC:18858 ) 8.9. As per the supplementary status report, filed on 15.05.2025, applicants have joined the investigation. 9. In this case, respondent No.2 has also filed the objections, opposing the prayer, so made, in the applications by pleading the fact that the behaviour of the applicants demonstrates that they are habitual criminals/habitual offenders. 9.1. It is the case of respondent No.2 that in case, the relief, as sought in the applications, is given to the applicants, they may be a threat to the safety and well-being of respondent No.2. 10. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants, as well as, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 had prayed that both the applications may be dismissed. 11. As per the status report, the applicants have joined the investigation and it is not the case of the police that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. 12. Moreover, the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law. 13. The applicants are permanent residents of District Kangra, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case the 7 2025:HHC:18858 ) interim order is made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 14. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by respondent No.2 (complainant), in the objections, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the interim order is made absolute. 15. Furthermore, the role, allegedly attributed to the applicants, in the crime in question, would be proved, during the trial. As such, at this stage, it can be said that the applicants presumed to be innocent. 16. Consequently, interim order, dated 28.04.2025 passed in both the applications, is made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, arising out of FIR No.62 of 2025, dated 07.04.2025, registered under Sections 332(c), 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act, with Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 17. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial 8 2025:HHC:18858 ) Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate applications; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 18. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications. 19. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move appropriate applications, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by any of the applicants. 20. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case file i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.913 of 2025. (Virender Singh) Judge June 19, 2025 (subhash)