IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.1313 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.09.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yugal Kishore @ Suraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Yugal Kishore @ Suraj, who is behind the bars since 20.04.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.86 of 2024, dated 11.04.2024, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 427, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Puneet Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Careful perusal of record/status report reveals that on 11.04.2021, at 2.24 AM, police Chowki, Joghon received telephonic call that quarrel is taking place at Rana Punjabi Dhaba, Baglehar. On receipt of afore information, police reached the spot and recorded the statement of complainant namely Sh. Jagjit Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C, who alleged that on 10.04.2024, at 6.30 PM, he reached Rana Daba on his motorcycle bearing No.HP-12-N-7256, where his friends namely, Kapil Gautam, Sukhvinder @ Mallu and Abhishek Kumar were already present. He alleged that he alongwith his friends consumed liquor, but thereafter, persons namely, Shilu and Bhajan, who were also sitting in the Dhaba, started quarreling. He alleged that he alongwith his friends also went towards Joghon driving his motorcycle, as detailed hereinabove, which at that relevant time was being driven by Sukhvinder @ Mallu. He alleged that, while they reached near Baglehar bridge, person namely Sukhvinder @ Mallu while driving the motorcycle rashly threw the same in nearby Khud, as a result of which, they all suffered multiple injuries. He alleged that accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Sukhvinder @ Mallu. All the injured were 3 taken to CHC, Nalagarh, where Medical Officer though declared complainant Jagjit Singh fit for recording statement, whereas persons namely, Sukhvinder @ Mallu and Kapil Gautam were declared unfit for statement. In the afore background, statement of complainant Jagjit Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C came to be recorded and thereafter, on the basis of same, FIR under Section 279 and 337 IPC came to be registered. 4. On 11.04.2024, Medical Officer, CHC Nalagarh referred Sukhvinder @ Mallu to PGI for treatment, whereas persons namely, Kapil Gautam and complainant Jagjit Singh were taken to simran hospital by their family members on the same day. Unfortunately, on 13.04.2024, Sukhvinder @ Mallu succumbed to his injuries suffered by him in the accident. Since deceased remained unconscious throughout, his statement could not be recorded. On 13.04.2024, police during investigation recorded the statement of complainant Jagjit Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein he alleged that accused Paramjeet Singh @ Rikki had purposely with an intention to kill him as well as his friends namely, Kapil Gautam, Sunil Kumar @ Shilu and Sukhvinder @ Mallu hit the motorcycle from behind, as a result thereof, same fell from the bridge. Taking note of aforesaid fresh statement made by complainant Jagjit Singh, police deleted Sections 279 and 337 IPC from the FIR and incorporated Sections 302, 307, 323 and 34 IPC. 4 In the aforesaid background, petitioner herein, who was allegedly sitting with the main accused Paramjeet Singh in Scorpio jeep, which allegedly hit the motorcycle from behind, also came to be named in the FIR. He alongwith Abhishek and Paramjeet Singh were arrested on 20.04.2024 and since then they all are behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that though version put forth by the complainant is wholly unreliable for the reason that on two occasions he made two different statements. In his statement recorded under Section 151 Cr.P.C. he claimed that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu, but subsequently he in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleged that accident was caused by accused Paramjeet Singh, who hit the motorcycle from behind. He further submitted that though no case muchless under Section 302 IPC is made out against the accused named in the FIR, but even if it is presumed that motorcycle being driven by Sukhvinder @ Mallu was hit from behind by accused Paramjeet Singh, petitioner herein, who was simply sitting in the 5 jeep cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, especially when there is nothing to suggest that he had any kind of motive to kill the deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu. He further submitted that if initial version put forth by the complainant Jagjit Singh is perused in its entirety, there is nothing to suggests that at the time of fight, if any, at Rana Dhaba, petitioner herein alongwith other co-accused were present. He further submitted that there is nothing in the FIR to suggest that there were some past rivalry interse Paramjeet party with deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu. He further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year, but till date, no prosecution witness has been examined, as a result thereof, petitioner is behind the bars for an indefinite period during the trial, which is wholly impermissible. He submitted that continuous incarceration of the petitioner in jail during trial would amount to pre-trial conviction, which is not permissible under law. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, though admitted the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, but he contended that second statement made by complainant Jagjit Singh clearly suggests that Sukhvinder @ Mallu was murdered by the persons sitting in the Scorpio jeep. He submitted that though Scorpio jeep at the relevant time was being driven by accused Paramjeet Singh, 6 but since petitioner alongwith other person Abhishek Kumar were sitting in the jeep and they had prior animosity with Sukhvinder @ Mallu, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the prosecution, while booking petitioner alongwith other accused under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325 and 34 IPC. He further submitted that the version put forth by the complainant being eye witness cannot be brushed aside, rather same needs to be given proper respect. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that complainant Jagjit Singh in his initial statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C.,nowhere stated something specific with regard to accident, if any, caused by Scorpio jeep being driven by co- accused Paramjeet Singh, rather he in his initial statement submitted that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle being driven by Sukhvinder @ Mallu. It is only after the death of Sukhvinder @ Mallu, complainant Jagjit Singh changed his statement. In his statement recorded under Section161 Cr.P.C complainant submitted that while he alongwith his friends namely Kapil Gautam, Sunil Kumar and deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu were going on motorcycle, which at the relevant time was being driven by Sukhvinder @ Mallu, jeep being driven by accused Paramjeet Singh came from behind and 7 hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, same fall from the bridge and all the occupants suffered grevious injuries. 8. There is no explanation rendered on record by the complainant Jagjit Singh that what made him to make his statement changed within a period of two days. In case, accident had occurred on account of motorcycle being hit by jeep being driven by accused Paramjeet Singh, there was no occasion, if any, for the complainant to get his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Sukhvinder @ Mallu. It is only after the death of Sukhvinder @ Mallu complainant Jagjit Singh changed his statement. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C though above named complainant alleged that motorcycle being driven by Sukhvinder @ Mallu was hit by jeep being driven by co- accused Paramjeet Singh, but to substantiate aforesaid claim of him, no convincing and cogent material has been adduced on record. 9. Though, at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that contradictions, if any, in the statements of the complainant may not be much relevance for the reason that complainant Jagjit Singh is eye witness and his statement has been further corroborated by Kapil Gautam, who was also one of the pillion rider. He also 8 submitted that minor contradictions are not fatal to the case of the prosecution, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that contradictions as have been pointed out in the case at hand by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner are not minor, rather same being major contractions may have great impact on the trial. In his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. attempt was made by the prosecution to project the case that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu, but after his death same complainant got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, stating therein that motorcycle being driven by deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu was hit by Scorpio driven by accused Paramjeet Singh. Though, on account of major contradictions, as indicated hereinabove, entire prosecution story has become doubtful, but if it is presumed that jeep being driven by accused Paramjeet Singh had actually hit the motorcycle being driven by deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu from behind, petitioner herein, who at the relevant time was sitting in the jeep cannot be made to suffer until and unless there is evidence that there was prior meeting of mind interse Paramjeet Singh, present bail petitioner and co-accused Abhishek. 10. Interestingly, in the case at hand complainant Jagjit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 151 Cr.P.C. though 9 alleged that quarrel took place interse persons namely Bhajan and Shilu at Rana Dhaba, but at no point of time he indicated or mentioned presence of the present bail petitioner at Rana Dhaba. Dispute, if any, was interse Sunil Kumar @ Shilu and Sukhvinder @ Mallu, if it is so, petitioner herein, who admittedly at the time of accident was sitting in the jeep cannot be said to have any motive to kill the deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu. Having taken note aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is persuaded to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, especially when guilt of his is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 11. There is nothing on record that petitioner herein had any kind of intention or knowledge to kill the deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu. Mere friendship, if any, of petitioner with accused Paramjeet may not be a ground to conclude his involvement in the case at hand. Challan has been filed by the Investigating Agency, wherein present bail petitioner has been charged under Sections 302, 307, 323, 323,435, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, but whether petitioner was actually involved in the case or he had prior knowledge that accused Paramjeet is driving his jeep behind motorcycle being driven by deceased Sukhvinder @ Mallu with an intention to hit the same from the behind, is a question to be decided by the trial Court in totality of evidence. 10 12. Though, aforesaid aspect of the matter is required to be considered and decided by learned trial court, in the totality of evidence collected on record by investigating agency, but this Court after having perused the medical record as well as status report sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Nothing has been placed on record by the Investigating agency from where it can be inferred that it may be difficult to secure the presence of the petitioner during trial and as such, this Court is of the view that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 11 aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 15. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Jeet Ram versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2003(HP) 23, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question. 8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh 10 caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : "........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by 12 Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal." 9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise : "Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail." 10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused 11 such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.” “12.There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the 13 commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account”. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 17. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 14 18. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 19. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 15 20. 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 this Court for cancellation of the bail. 21. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 22. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge September 04, 2025 (shankar)