Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:17994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. : 1031 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.05.2025 Decided on : 06.06.2025 Salman
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Kshitij Sharma & Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General assisted by ASI Naresh Kumar, Police Station, Barotiwala. Virender Singh, Judge. ApplicantSalman has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No.135 of 2024, dated 10.10.2024, registered, under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17994 126(2), 238, 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the petition, and has falsely been implicated by the Police, in this case, at the instance of the complainant. 3. As per the applicant, on 11.10.2024, applicant has been arrested by the Police and final report has been submitted by the police on 2.1.2025. He has termed the case of the prosecution registered against him as absurd, baseless and based on imaginary narrative. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that the present case is the result of retaliation by the complainant in collusion with Abdul, as, according to the applicant, he had also lodged the FIR No.136, dated 10.10.2024, against the complainant party. 5. Highlighting the fact that the present FIR has been registered at 2.06 a.m., whereas, FIR No. 136, was registered at 2.30 a.m., on the same day, it is the
3 2025:HHC:17994 further case of the petitioner that there was a quarrel between the complainant party and the accused and both the parties had sustained injuries. 6. According to the applicant, Jamil had died due to infection, as, he was discharged from the Hospital on 15.10.2024. Relying upon the statement of Shakeel, brother of Janmil, it has been contended that no allegation has been levelled against the applicant in the said statement of Shakeel. 7.
Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 10.10.2024, HC Nardeep Singh No.30 has brought the statement of
4 2025:HHC:17994 Ajmal, disclosing therein that on 9.10.2024, when complainant Ajmal, Jamil, Abdul, and Vishal, were going to Kattiwala, in connection with their personal work in a Maruti 800 Car owned by Vishal and reached Chitkara University gate, then, Chaman, Salman, Aslam, Razeek and Saleem, had beaten them and due to this, they had sustained injuries. As such, the complainant had prayed that action be taken against them. 10. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 11. During investigation, the I.O. visited the CHC Baddi, where, Salman, Chaman and Raj Kumar, were also found there in injured conditions. All the three were medicolegally examined. In the meanwhile, in CHC Baddi, Salman (applicant) has also given a complainant, on the basis of which, FIR No.136 of 2024, dated 10.10.2024, under Section 115(2), 190 and 192(2) of the BNS, was registered. 5 2025:HHC:17994
12. After registration of both the FIRs, it has been found that the incident had taken place at a place known as ‘Kalujhinda, between two groups. The investigation of both the cases was handed over to HC Shyam Singh. 13. During investigation, HC Shyam Singh, at the instance of complainant, visited the spot and prepared the spot map. Statements of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS were recorded. During investigation, Vishal has produced the Maruti Car, bearing registration No.HR41A4415, along with its keys and documents, which was allegedly damaged in the said quarrel and the same was taken into possession. 14.
Medical Officer, PGI, Chandigarh declared the injuries, on the person of injured, as dangerous to life, as such, Section 109 BNS was added. 15. On 11.10.2024, during investigation of the case, accused Saleem, Salman, Raj Kumar, Rafiq, were called to the Police Station and after inquiry from them they were arrested on 11.10.2024 at 7.20 p.m. They were medicolegally examined. On 10.10.2024, Saleem
6 2025:HHC:17994 produced Maruti Car Zen HR03E8921, which was allegedly used in the incident, which had taken place on
9.10.2021. As per the registration certificate, the same was owned by Jai Pal, resident of Pinjore. 16. On 12.10.2024, accused Saleem, Salman and Raj Kumar were produced before the Court of learned ACJM, Nalagarh and they were remanded to the police custody. During Police remand, accused Salman (applicant), made a statement, under Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshay Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSA’) and identified the place where the scuffle had taken place on 9.10.2024 and also got recorded in his statement that he could get the weapon of offence recovered from there. In pursuance of the said statement, bamboo stick was got recovered by applicant Salman, which was also taken into possession, on
17.10.2024. 17. On 17.10.2024, the police received information, from Civil Hospital, Sector6, Panchkula, that injured Jamil, who was admitted in PGI Chandigarh
7 2025:HHC:17994 and was discharged, however, when his condition was deteriorated, then, he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Panchkula, had expired, upon which, the requisite forms were filled in and the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted. Thereafter, Section 103 of BNS was added and Section 109 of BNS was deleted, from the case on 22.10.2024. 18. Application for obtaining CDRs and location of mobile phones of accused Saleem, Raj Kumar, Salman (applicant), Rafiq Mohd, Asalam and Chaman was made and statements, under Section 180 of BNSS, were recorded. 19.
During investigation, one accused Rafiq Mohd was found to be Child in conflict with Law (CCL), on the basis of his date of birth. On 25.10.2024, incharge, RFSL Unit Baddi visited the spot and also inspected the Car bearing No.HR41A4415, and blood shades and glass stains were lifted from the spot. 20. In the postmortem examination, the doctor has opined that the cause of death is septicemic shock
8 2025:HHC:17994 due to injury to vital organ brain, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 21. During investigation, on 6.11.2024, accused Chaman was arrested. He was produced before the Court of ACJM, Nalagarh, from where, he was remanded to police custody. During investigation, he has disclosed that on 9.10.2024, Ajmal, Abdul, Jamil, Aman, Vishal, Bunty and Rajbir had a quarrel and the above persons along with their companion Salman (applicant) had beaten them. His statement under Section 23 of BSA was also recorded and in pursuance of the same, he got recovered a Danda, which was taken into possession. On 19.12.2024, accused Aslam was also arrested. 22. It is further case of the police that against accused Saleem, Salman (applicant) and Raj Kumar, except the present case, no other case is found to have been registered, whereas, against accused Chaman, two cases are found to have been registered in Police Station Pinjore and against accused Aslam, one case is found to have been registered. 9 2025:HHC:17994
23. Druing investigation, CCTV footage of the camera installed in the Kalujhanda University campus were obtained and the same was perused. On perusal of the same, it transpired that the incident in question had taken place at about 9.50 p.m. The tower location of the accused was found to be in village Kalujhanda. 24.
Lastly, it has been apprehended that accused Salim, Salman (applicant) and their companion have got registered FIR No.136 of 2024, against the complainant party and they are from the same village, and in case, the applicant is released on bail, they may again quarrel with each other and may commit some serious offence, as both the parties are quarrelsome in nature and having grudges against each other. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 25. In this case, the applicant has placed on record the statement of Shakil recorded by the Police, under Section 180 of the BNSS and also has placed on record the statement of Aslam, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, in the present case. 10 2025:HHC:17994
26. As per the statement of Shakil, deceased Jamil, had disclosed to him as well as, his mother that he was beaten by Sunny, Bindu, Pinki, Yog Raj and Bittu and at the same time, he has also got recorded that when his brother was referred to Chandigarh, then in the hospital, father of Salman (applicant) came and allured the witnesses and his mother to get the name of Salman (applicant) deleted from the array of accused, whereas, in the statement made by Aslam, he has got recorded that on 9.10.2024, he, along with his friend Manoj Chaudhary, in his vehicle No.HR41G0099, had gone to Ropar and after attending their work, they were on their way back to their home, at about 7.30 p.m., one kilometer ahead from Pinjore, they halted to have their meal on a Dhaba. 27. During their hault, one Yog Raj @ Pinki, disclosed the fact that Chaman had sustained injuries, upon which, witness Aslam, along with Manoj Chaudhary, in his vehicle, whereas, Yog Raj and Bittu, in their own vehicles, had proceeded to bring Chaman.
11 2025:HHC:17994 He has further got recorded that when they reached at the gate of University, then Chaman was found in injured condition, sitting in front seat of the Scorpio vehicle of Bindu and Salman (applicant), was also present there. As per his statement applicant Salman had also sustained injuries. 28. Those statements have been relied upon and highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate that the applicant has sustained injuries in the incident and no role has been attributed to him even by the witness. 29. Apart from this, it has also been argued that in the statement made by Aslam, no specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant. 30. Considering the said fact, along with the fact that investigation, in the present case, is complete and the police has submitted the charge sheet, which is pending in the competent court of law, this Court is of the view that although, the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, however, considering the
12 2025:HHC:17994 same in the light of the statements of Aslam and Sahkil, this Court is of the view that the role allegedly stated to have been played by the applicant, will be proved during the trial. 31. Applicant is young man of 18 years and rejecting the bail, would amount to keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, in the company of hardened criminal, which certainly would affect his future. 32. The investigation, in the present case, is complete and the challan has been filed in the competent Court of law. Chances of the conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 33. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pretrial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by the competent Court of law. 13 2025:HHC:17994
34.
Considering the said fact, especially, the stand taken by the witnesses Aslam and Shakil, in their statements, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for grant of bail, in his favour. 35. In view of the stand taken by the applicant, as well as, the prosecution, it seems that it is an act of free fight/fight between two groups, and it will be proved during the trial as to which party was aggressor one, as both the parties have lodged FIRs against each other. 36. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial arising out of FIR No.135 of 2024, dated 10.10.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 238 103 of BNS, with Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/, with two sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 14 2025:HHC:17994
37.
This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
“a) That the applicant shall make herself available for the purpose of investigation, if so required 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 appropriate application;
b) That the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) That the applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Office; and d) That the applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.”
38. Any of the observations made herein above 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. 39. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/petitioner. 15 2025:HHC:17994
40. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Solan, through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software. 41. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Solan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan.
The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Solan, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 06, 2025(ps)
Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.06.06 16:19:04 IST