Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19369 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1235 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.06.2025 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025. Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General with ASI Vinod Kumar, I/C PS Sadar, Chamba, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 registered at Police Station Sadar District Chamba, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 238 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 24.01.2025 and has been in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 custody since then. The petitioner has not committed the offence alleged against him. As per the prosecution, the informant and Pawan Kumar were returning to their home. An unknown person came with a stick and inflicted a blow on the head of Pawan Kumar. Pawan Kumar fell. He was taken to the hospital. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Lakhimpur Khiri (UP), and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, the petition. 3. The petitioner is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant and Pawan Kumar were walking together on 23.01.2025. When they reached near Pir Panjal at about 6:15 pm, an unknown person came from the opposite side carrying a stick. He enquired from Pawan Kumar as to where he was going. Pawan Kumar said that he was going to the house of his uncle, Kewal Kumar. The unknown person inflicted an injury with the stick on the head of Pawan Kumar. The unknown person ran away from the spot. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The petitioner was apprehended by the local police. He revealed his name as Gurcharan Singh. He was identified by the informant as the assailant. Pawan Kumar was 3 taken to the hospital, and as per the report, the injuries sustained by him were dangerous to life. The victim had sustained a fracture on the left side of the frontal bone. He had also consumed alcohol, and its quantity was found to be 129.73 mg ± 1.80. The police have filed the charge sheet. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 09.07.2025, 14.07.2025 and 16.07.2025. The trial is yet to commence. The offence is heinous; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The victim was intoxicated, and the possibility of sustaining the injury by way of a fall cannot be ruled out. The charge sheet has been filed, and 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. 4 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had caused a grievous injury to the informant’s head, which was dangerous to life. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner is likely to commit the crime in case of his release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC 5 (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to 6 impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and 7 standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. As per the prosecution's case, the assailant was an unknown person. He was identified by the informant in the presence of the police. Prima facie, the identification of the accused in the presence of the police is inadmissible, being hit by Section 181 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) corresponding to Section 162 of Cr. P.C2. 13. As per the allegations in the FIR, the victim was not known to the petitioner. The petitioner had inflicted a single injury on the head without any reason by means of a stick. The police added Section 109 because the Medical Officer opined that the injury was dangerous to life. An injury which is dangerous to life falls within the purview of Section 116(h) of the BNS and is 2 Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733 8 punishable under Section 117(2) of the BNS3; hence, prima facie the allegations do not make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS; hence, the plea that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous; which is severely punishable is not acceptable. 14. It is undisputed that the police have filed the charge sheet before the Court; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not justified. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 3 Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab 1980 Crim. L.J. 1220 9 (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District-Cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the 10 petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd June, 2025 (saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.06.23 14:54:44 NPT