2025:HHC:24264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 1 274 of 2025 Reserved on  : 03 .07.2025 Decided on    : 25 .0 7  .2025 Rajesh Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant     : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Anup  Rattan,  Advocate  General with Mr. Tejasvi  Sharma, Additional Advocate   General   and   Mr. Rohit Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate   General, assisted   by  S.I.   Raghujeet   Singh, Police   Station Khundian,   District Kangra, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge By  way  of the present application, filed  under Section  483  of  the  Bharatiya  Nagarik  Suraksha   Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant­Rajesh 2 2025:HHC:24264 Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.14/2025 dated 13.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under   Sections   103(1),   127(2)   and   3(5)   of   the   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as the FIR,   in   the   present   case,   has   been   registered   on   the statement of wife of the deceased, who even was not present at the time of incident. 3. It is the further case of the applicant that he has no concern whatsoever with the crime in question, as on the date of the alleged incident, the applicant along with one Rakesh   Kumar   took   Madan   Lal   to   Hospital,   after   the deceased had hit Madan Lal with stones and ran away from there. 4. Reasserting   the   fact   that   the   applicant   is innocent person and falsely been arrested, in this case, on 17.2.2025,  he  has  moved   similar   application   before  the 3 2025:HHC:24264 Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, on 9.4.2025, however, the said application was dismissed on 22.4.2025. 5. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground of parity as co­accused Madan Lal, has approached this Court by filing Cr.MP(M) No. 260 of 2025, which has been allowed on 08.04.2025. 6. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and according to the applicant, nothing is to be recovered from him or at his instance. 7. Apart   from   this,   Mr. Shrawan   Dogra,   learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, 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 allow the bail application. 9. When,   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status   report,   disclosing   therein,   that  on   13.02.2025, SI/SHO,   along   with   other   police   officials,   had   reached 4 2025:HHC:24264 Village Batal Khurd in order to verify the facts, as entered in Rapat No.21 dated 13.02.2025. 9.1. Thereafter, on the spot, complainant­Rekha Devi, W/o   Naveen   Kumar   @Binta   got   recorded   her   statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein, that she was married to Naveen Kumar @Binta, S/o Suresh Kumar R/o Village Amb Uchhad, Tehsil Jwalamukhi District  Kangra, about four years ago and they have been blessed with one daughter. 9.2. According   to   the   complainant,   on   12.02.2025, she, along with her husband Naveen Kumar, brother­in­law (devar) Bablu, had started from their home to the house of their   maternal   uncle   (mama)   Dalip   Singh   @Kaku,   S/o Kishan Chand R/o Village Batal Khurd, as, slab was to be laid   and   community   lunch   (Dham)   was   also   there. They reached there at 11:00 am. After having their food, in the house   of   their   maternal   uncle,   at   about   03:00   pm,   the complainant   had   returned   back   to   her   house   with   her maternal   aunt   (masi),   whereas,   Naveen   Kumar   @Binta, Bablu,   father­in­law   Suresh   Kumar   and   mother­in­law 5 2025:HHC:24264 Manorama Devi stayed in the house of maternal uncle. The in­laws of the complainant were residing in Batal Khurd for the last two months, as, her mother­in­law suffered a stroke of paralysis. Her husband and brother­in­law also stayed there. 9.3. On   the   same   day,   at   about   10:15­10:30   pm, complainant’s husband Naveen Kumar informed her from his   mobile   No.98764­03865   that   ‘Mama   and   Masad   are beating’   and   phone   was   disconnected. When,   the complainant again called her husband and enquired as to who are beating, then, her husband disclosed that maternal uncle Kaku @Dalip Singh, Masad Madan Lal etc. are beating and   also   requested   her   to   send   vehicle. Thereafter,   the complainant enquired from her husband, as to who is with him,   upon   which,   her   husband   has   given   the   mobile   to Simpu,   son   of   the   maternal   uncle   of   Naveen   Kumar,   to whom, the complainant requested to make him sleep, so he will be alright till morning. 9.4. It is the further case of the complainant that on 13.02.2025,   at   about   10:00   am,   father­in­law   of   the 6 2025:HHC:24264 complainant informed her that Naveen Kumar @Binta has expired,   upon   which,   the   complainant,   along   with   her mother, paternal aunt (Tai) and other relatives reached at the spot. 9.5. According to the complainant, she is sure that her husband has been killed by Kaku @Dalip Singh and Masad Madan Lal by giving beating to him. As such, it has been prayed that action be taken against them. 9.6. Thereafter, police registered the FIR in question and police machinery swung into motion. 10. On   13.02.2025,   team   of   RFSL,   Dharamshala visited the spot and collected the physical evidence, which was handed over to the police. Dead body of Naveen Kumar was   sent   to   Dr. Rajendra   Prasad   Government   Medical College,   Tanda,   District   Kangra,   H.P.   for   conducting   the postmortem. Physical   evidence,   so   collected/preserved   by the doctors, was handed over to the police and thereafter, dead   body   was   handed   over   to   his   family   members   for performing   last   rites. Statements   of   the   witnesses   were recorded, under Section 180 of BNSS. 7 2025:HHC:24264 11. Subsequently,   the   investigation   from   accused Dalip Singh @ Kamaljit was conducted and Dalip Singh @ Kamaljit,   Rakesh   Kumar     and   Rajesh   Kumar   (applicant) were arrested on 14.02.2025 at 05:45 pm. They were also medico   legally   examined   from   Civil   Hospital,   Khundian. Accused Dalip Singh @Kamaljit, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar (applicant) have also identified the spot. Thereafter, Section 127(2) of BNS has been added, in this case. 12. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on 15.02.2025,   accused   Madan   Lal   has   joined   the investigation,   as   he   has   approached   this  Court,   under Section 482 of the BNSS. He was medico­legally examined by the doctor at Civil Hospital, Khundian. The doctor has advised for NCCT head, upon which, NCCT Head, along with ENT   check   up,   was   done   in   Civil   Hospital,   Palampur. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Palampur, has given the final opinion   that   ‘after   going   through   ENT   opinion   from   CH Palampur the nature of injury is grievous in nature’. 13. It is the further case of the police that during the investigation,   on   2.4.2025,   Histopathology   report   of 8 2025:HHC:24264 deceased Naveen Kumar @ Binta was produced, in which, the   specialist   of   Dr. RPGMC   Tanda   has   opined   that ‘Microscopic   examination­Sections   examined   show   heart and coronaries unremarkable histological features’. 14. Similarly,   final   opinion   on   postmortem   report No.29/25, dated 14.02.2025, was obtained from the Medical Officer, Dr. RPGMC, Tanda, who has opined that ‘after going through   the   above   mentioned   documents,   I   am   of   the considered opinion that cause of death is already given in the   PMR   as,   shock   due   to   cumulative   effect   of   multiple injuries caused by blunt force, which could be possible in the alleged circumstances. Deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of incident’. 15. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on 27.3.2025, bank statement of father of the deceased was obtained from State Bank of India Branch Jwalamukhi. As per the statement of account, from 1.2.2024 to 12.2.2025, Suresh had issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/­, in favour of his brother­in­law Dalip Singh. 16. During   investigation,   the   service   provider   was 9 2025:HHC:24264 requested   to   issue   CAFs   and   CDRs   of   mobile   phone No.98166­66168,   allegedly   issued   in   the   name   of   Rajesh Kumar (applicant), mobile phone No.82199­47281, allegedly issued in the name of Dalip Singh, mobile phone No.98162­ 29665, allegedly issued in the name of Madan Lal, mobile phone   No.98054­38420,   allegedly   issued   in   the   name   of complainant   Rekha   Devi,   as   well   as,   mobile   phone No.98764­03865, of deceased Naveen Kumar @ Binta. As per the CDRs, complainant had called her husband at 10.13 p.m.  As per the telephonic conversation with Rekha Devi, deceased   allegedly   disclosed   to   her   that   Dalip   Singh (maternal uncle) and Madan Lal (Masad), etc., are beating him. During the night of 12.2.2025, the location of mobile phones   of   Rajesh   Kumar,   Dalip   Singh,   Madan   Lal,   was found to be at Bhatalkhurd, where Naveen was expired. 17. Lastly, it has been pleaded by the police that during the investigtion, it was found that on 12.02.2025, accused Dalip Singh @ Kaku had to put slab on his newly constructed house, as such, he has organized a community lunch   and   invited   his   relatives. Consequently,   accused 10 2025:HHC:24264 Madal Lal Rajesh Kumar (applicant), Rakesh Kumar, Sunita Devi @ Pinko, Nisha Devi, Bina Kumari and Kavita Devi, participated   in   the   lunch. Sister   of   Dalip   suffered   a paralytic attack, as such, his sister Manoharma, brother­in­ law, Suresh were residing in the house of Dalip Singh, for the last two months. Deceased Naveen Kumar @ Binta and his   wife   Rakha   Devi   and   brother   Bablu   also   visited   the house of Dalip on 12.2.2025, along with complainant Rekha Devi. After having lunch, complainant Rekha Devi, wife of the   deceased,   returned   back   at   about   3.00   p.m.   to   her village Amb Uchhad and work of laying slab was stopped at about 5.30 p.m. 18. Thereafter,   at   about   8.00   p.m.,   accused   Dalip Singh,   Madan   Lal,   Rakesh   Kumar,   Rajesh   Kumar (applicant),   started   consuming   liquor,   whereas   Suresh Kumar and his wife Manorama, sister­in­law Kavita, Sunita Devi @ Pinko and Nisha sat in the room on the ground floor. At about 9.00 p.m., cousin of Dalip Singh, namely Pratap Singh @ Ravi also joined the accused persons for consuming liquor. 11 2025:HHC:24264 19. At about 10.00/10.30 p.m., accused Madan Lal had gone out to respond the call of nature towards passage and   when   he   reached   in   front   of   the   house   of   Kuldeep Kumar, Naveen Kumar, deceased, who was also under the influence of liquor had started abusing him and said that Dalip   Singh   @   Kaku,   is   constructing   the   house   by   the amount, which was given by his father to him. Due to this fact, scuffle took place between them. 20. After   hearing   commotion,   the   co­brothers   of Madan Lal and Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar   (applicant) and brother in law Dalip Singh, also reached there. Naveen Kumar @ Binta had inflicted injuries with stones on the head   of   Dalip   Singh   and   thereafter   Naveen   fled   away towards   forest. Madan   Lal   and   his   co­brother   Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar (applicant) and brother in­law Dalip Singh, chased him. On the way they lifted dandas and in the forest with the  dupatta  put by accused Dalip Singh @ Kaku, around his neck, had tied the legs of deceased Naveen @   Binta   with   pine   tree   and   given   beatings   to   him. Thereafter, they left the deceased in the forest and thrown 12 2025:HHC:24264 away the weapon of offence i.e. dandas. 21. Thereafter, Pratap @ Ravi, was called and said Pratap   took   Madan   Lal   to   a   private   doctor   at   Majheen. Doctor was apprised that Madan Lal sustained injuries after having a fall from stairs. Thereafter, First­Aid was given to him and they came back. Thereafter accused Dalip Singh @ kaku and accused Rajesh Kumar (applicant) and Rakesh kumar had gone to forest to see the condition of Naveen Kumar @ Binta. His legs were untied and they returned back leaving him in the forest. Next morning, they came to know the fact that Naveen Kumar had died. 22. Lastly,   it     has   been   mentioned   in   the   status report that charge sheet has been filed against Madan Lal, Rajesh Kumar  (applicant), Rakesh Kumar and Dalip Singh @ Kaku in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. 23. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   learned Additonal   Advocate   General,   appearing   for   the   State   has prayed that the applicant has been arrested in a serious offence of murder and as per the stand of the police, it has 13 2025:HHC:24264 been   argued   that   it   is   a   case   of   cold   blooded   murder committed by the accused, after hatching conspiracy. 24. Perusal of the record shows that on 16.2.2025, I.O. had recorded the supplementary statement of Rekha Devi. Whatsoever   recorded   in   the   statement   of   the complainant,   has   allegedly   been   disclosed   to   her   by   her father­in­law Suresh Kumar. 25. As per the statement of Suresh Kumar, he had also not witnessed the crime, in question and simply stated that the accused persons namely Madan Lal, Rajesh Kumar (applicant), Rakesh Kumar and Dalip Singh @ Kaku, had gone   to   chase   Naveen   Kumar   @   Binta   and   after   30­45 minutes   came   back   and   took   Madan   Lal   to   doctor   at Majheen village. 26. Simro Devi, wife of Trilok Chand and Guddo Devi wife of Kudeep singh, in their statements have stated that they had also gone to forest, where accused Madan  Lal, Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar (applicant) and Dalip Singh @ Kaku had gone to chase deceased Naveen Kumar. They had further got recorded that the above persons had given 14 2025:HHC:24264 beatings to Naveen Kumar with danda and his feet were also tied with pine tree. Simro and Guddo had tried to save him, but, the accused have not paid heed to them. On the basis of the said statements, prayer for bail has been opposed, in this case. 27. Although,   charge­sheet   has   been   filed,   but, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, according to which the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. Simro Devi and Guddo Devi are residents of village Bhatalkhurd, where the incident had taken place, releasing the applicant, against whom, specific allegations have been levelled, would not be in the interest of justice. 28. Considering the seriousness of the offence, i.e., murder of a young man, allegedly by his relatives, as well as, considering the fact that the witnesses are not strangers, but, their relatives, releasing the applicant, on bail, will give wrong signal to the society, that after committing such a heinous crime, accused (applicant) is moving freely in the society. 29. Merely,   on   account   of   the   fact   that   the 15 2025:HHC:24264 statements   of   the   star   witnesses   were   recorded   on 16.02.2025, i.e., after four days from the alleged incident, the allegations, levelled by these two witnesses, cannot be ignored, at this stage. 30. While deciding  the question  of bail, a delicate balance between individual liberty and larger interest of the society is to be maintained. 31. So   far   as   the   arguments   qua   the   fact   that protection was given to accused Madan Lal, under Section 482 of the BNSS, are concerned, the relief has been granted to the said accused on the ground that he had sustained injuries, allegedly caused by the deceased. As such, the role attributed to accused Madan Lal is entirely different to that of the applicant. 32. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   applicant   has failed to make out a case for releasing him, on bail, at this stage, as such, the present application is dismissed. 33. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of 16 2025:HHC:24264 the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. Record be returned to the quarter concerned. (Virender Singh) Judge July 25, 2025 (ps)