2025:HHC:15450 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.992 of 2025 Reserved on : 15.05.2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 Vijay Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Applicant in person with Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Jasvinder, Police Station Nalagarh. Virender Singh, Judge Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.84/2025 dated 13.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., applicant-Vijay Kumar has filed the 2 2025:HHC:15450 present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above- mentioned case/FIR. 3. According to the applicant, FIR in question has been registered against him on the basis of false and concocted facts, as, according to him, it is the applicant, who was the victim and was attacked by Gurmeet Singh @Bhau, along with the complainant and 15 other persons. 4. As per the applicant, he is having deep roots in the society and in case, he is disentitled from any relief, it would cause prejudice to his reputation. 5. The FIR in question is stated to have been registered against the applicant by the complainant, in order to settle his personal vendetta. 6. The applicant has further pleaded that he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before 3 2025:HHC:15450 the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, however, the same was dismissed, on the basis of false police report, vide order dated 10.04.2025. 6.1. Thereafter, the applicant had moved bail application, bearing CrMP(M) No.909 of 2025, before this Court. However, the said application was also dismissed, vide order dated 28.04.2025, on the basis of status report, wherein, it was mentioned that the offence, involved in the present case, under Section 117(2) of the BNS, is bailable one. However, when, the applicant approached the police, through his counsel, for furnishing bail bonds, then, the police said that they would arrest the applicant, under Section 109 of BNS, which, according to the police, has not been deleted, in the present case. 7. On the basis of above facts, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./police of PS Nalagarh, in this case. 4 2025:HHC:15450 8. Vide order dated 02.05.2025, State was directed to file the status report. 9. As per the status report, which has been filed on 02.05.2025, on 12.03.2025, one Gurpreet, from Mobile No.97366-09992, has tried to talk with SHO, Police Station Nalagarh. However, the sound of commotion was also audible, while attending the phone. The person, who had called the SHO, disclosed him that he is present at Vegetable Market, New Nalagarh, upon which, Inspector/SHO, along with other police officials, reached at Vegetable Market, New Nalagarh, where, Gurpreet Singh @Bhau, S/o Ram Karan, was found lying injured in unconscious condition. Thereafter, the police took him to CHC Nalagarh, where, his medico legal examination was conducted and MLC was obtained, according to which, the kind of weapon, used in the incident, is blunt. However, the final opinion, with regard to the injuries, was kept reserved by the Medical Officer. 9.1. It is the case of the police that one Parveen Kumar made a statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein, that he is resident of the address, as 5 2025:HHC:15450 mentioned in the statement, and running a fruit shop in Kisan Mandi, Nalagarh. 9.2. As per the further statement of said Parveen Kumar, on 12.03.2025, he was present at his shop, then, at about 09:35 pm, he and Gurpreet Singh @Bhau started returning back to home, on their bike. At that time, Vijay Rana (applicant) and his nephew Sahil and Ravinder chased them and caught the complainant from the back. Thereafter, Vijay Rana (applicant) inflicted a danda blow on Gupreet Singh @Bhau. Consequently, Gurpreet Singh @Bhau fell down and Vijay Rana (applicant) inflicted 3-4 danda blows on Gurpreet Singh @Bhau. However, Gurpreet Singh @Bhau had saved himself by putting his arms on his head, whereas, two young men, who were with Vijay Rana (applicant), had given fist and kick blows to Gurpreet Singh @Bhau. 9.3. It is the further case of the police that Vijay Rana (applicant) had proclaimed number of times that no one will come forward to save him and who will dare to do so, he will not be spared. Thereafter, Vijay Rana (applicant) caught Gurpreet Singh from his head and banged his head on road 6 2025:HHC:15450 and also beaten him with fist blows. Consequently, Gurpreet Singh became unconscious. Thereafter, all the above three accused persons, after abusing Gurpreet Singh @Bhau, had fled away from the spot in the vehicle. 9.4. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion. 9.5. During the investigation, CCTV footage of the cameras, installed nearby the spot, was obtained. Spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses were recorded and on that basis, Sections 115(2) and 352 of BNS have been added, in this case. 9.6. After perusing the CCTV footage, it was found that on 12.03.2025, at about 09:36 pm, one person was beaten mercilessly, on the road, in front of Kuldeep Chicken Corner. The said person was beaten with fist and kick blows and complainant-Parveen Kumar disclosed that the person, who was shown to be lying there, was Gurpreet Singh @Bhau and the person, who attacked on Gupreet Singh @Bhau, was Vijay Kumar @Rana (applicant). Number of 7 2025:HHC:15450 passersby gathered there, but, no one had saved Gurpreet Singh @Bhau. After beating Gurpreet Singh @Bhau, Vijay Kumar @Rana (applicant) fled away from the spot in his vehicle. 9.7. It is the further case of the police that in the CCTV footage, Gurpreet Singh @Bhau was found lying unconscious and as per the CCTV footage, police reached at the spot at about 09:55 pm. When, the complainant was enquired about the involvement of accused Sahil and Ravinder, then, he has disclosed that both of them were present there, but, they had not beaten Gurpreet Singh @Bhau and due to anger, complainant had named both the said persons as accused, by making the statement against them. 9.8. It is the further case of the police that on the basis of analysis of CCTV footage, the involvement of Sahil and Ravinder was not found. As such, Section 3(5) of BNS was deleted, in this case. 9.9. It is the further case of the police that Vijay Kumar (applicant) had filed the similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, 8 2025:HHC:15450 District Solan, H.P., however, the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 10.04.2025. 9.10. It is the further case of the police that on 16.04.2025, CT scan report of Gurpreet Singh @Bhau was produced, before the Medical Officer and his final opinion, on MLC, was obtained, who has given the following opinion:- “Displaced fracture both nasal bones. In my opinion, injury is grievous in nature.” 9.11. On the basis of the above, Sections 109, 115(2), 352 and 117(2) of BNS have been added, in this case. 9.12. As per the status report, following cases have been registered against the applicant:- i. FIR No.32/16 dated 08.02.2016, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh, in which, on 07.04.2016, the applicant was fined of Rs.12,000/-. ii. FIR No.107/16 dated 12.06.2016, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh, in which, on 27.07.2016, the applicant was fined of Rs.7,000/-. iii. FIR No.237/16 dated 28.11.2016, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh, in which, on 28.08.2017, the applicant was fined of Rs.6,000/-. iv. FIR No.97/17 dated 15.05.2017, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh. v. FIR No.232/17 dated 16.10.2017, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh. 9 2025:HHC:15450 vi. FIR No.27/18 dated 26.01.2018, under Section 379 IPC, PS Nalagarh. vii. FIR No.75/18 dated 12.03.2018, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh. viii. FIR No.04/20 dated 02.01.2020, under Section 39(1) AHP Excise Act, PS Nalagarh. ix. FIR No.34/21 dated 10.03.2021, under Sections 376D, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 34 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, PS Ropar. 9.13. It is the further case of the police that the weapon of offence and vehicle, used for fleeing away from the spot, are yet to be recovered, in this case and in case, the relief, as sought in the application, is granted to the applicant, in that eventuality, he may coerce the witnesses and may again commit some serious offence. 10. In the supplementary status report, which was filed on 08.05.2025, it has been mentioned that the applicant has joined the investigation and got recovered the weapon of offence, as well as, the vehicle, used for fleeing away from the spot and nothing is to be recovered from him, nor anything is to be enquired from him. 11. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12. In this case, on 02.05.2025, interim protection 10 2025:HHC:15450 was given to the applicant, by directing the Investigating Officer of the case/police of PS Nalagarh not to take any coercive action against the applicant, with regard to the FIR in question. 13. As per the stand, taken by the police, in this case, nine cases are found to have been registered against the applicant. 13.1. Admittedly, out of the said cases, in three cases, which were registered, under the provisions of Excise Act, the applicant was fined by the competent Court of law. 13.2. Even otherwise, for the other remaining cases, which have been registered against the applicant, he cannot be said to be a habitual offender. 14. Learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, has pointed out that there is no evidence on record, to show that the ingredients of Section 109 of BNS are attracted, in this case. 15. No doubt, the doctor, who has given the final opinion, declared the injury on the person of Gurpreet Singh @Bhau as grievous in nature. However, in the statements of the witnesses, recorded by the IO, during the investigation, 11 2025:HHC:15450 all the witnesses, namely Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/o Mithlesh Rai, Arjun, S/o Dharambir, Kuldeep, S/o Des Raj and Parveen, S/o Jagdish (complainant), in the supplementary statements, have deposed that had the number of passersby been not gathered there, the applicant would have killed injured Gupreet Singh @Bhau, whereas, in the statement, given to the police, injured has stated that due to the danda blow, on his head, he had felt dizziness and thereafter, the applicant had started beating him with fist blows. Consequently, he fell down and became unconscious. When, injured Gupreet Singh @Bhau had fallen on the road, Vijay Kumar (applicant) proclaimed that he will finish him. 16. On the basis of above statements of the witnesses, learned Additional Advocate General has aruged that intention of the applicant was to kill injured Gurpreet Singh @Bhau. 17. However, at the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussions about the merits and demerits of the case should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the 12 2025:HHC:15450 case of the accused (applicant). 18. Even otherwise, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, by the above witnesses, would be proved during the trial and merely, the material fact, which the complainant had allegedly got recorded in his statement, qua the fact that when, Gurpreet Singh @Bhau had fallen down, the applicant had uttered that he would kill him, does not mean that the intention of the applicant was to kill Gurpreet Singh @Bhau. 19. Mere registration of abovementioned cases is too short to take away the presumption of innocence from the applicant. 20. In this case, initially, the complainant had mentioned the names of three accused and later on, changed his version that due to anger, he had wrongly mentioned the names of two accused, whose involvement was also not found by the police, after perusing the CCTV footage of the area. This fact cannot be ignored, while deciding the question of bail. 21. Furthermore, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial 13 2025:HHC:15450 punishment is prohibited, under the law. 22. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for the relief, as claimed in the application. 23. Consequently, interim order, dated 02.05.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.84/2025 dated 13.03.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 and 117(2) of the BNS, with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 24. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial 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 application; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant 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 14 2025:HHC:15450 d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 25. 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 application. 26. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 27. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. 28. Record be returned to the quarter concerned. (Virender Singh) Judge May 23, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)