1  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1571 of 2025 Reserved on:- 18.07.2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 Karamjeet Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Karamjeet Singh, apprehending his arrest, in a case arising out of FIR No.211 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the BNS), with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought, by the applicant, to direct the IO/Police of Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above mentioned FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, at the instance of the complainant party, who is having vested interest against him. 4. The applicant has further pleaded that there is history of litigation, between the applicant and complainant party. In this regard, applicant has also pleaded that in one of the cases, the informant and injured have been convicted by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The inimical relationship between the parties has been put forward for seeking the relief, under Section 482 of BNSS, on the ground that due to the said animosity, he has falsely been implicated, in this case. 5. The applicant has given certain undertakings, for which he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police under Section 482 of BNSS. 3  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) 6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed, by granting the relief, as claimed in the application. 7. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 04.07.2025. In the status report, it has been mentioned that on 25.06.2025, HC Ajay Kumar, No.20, Police Station Nalagarh, along with the another police official was on patrolling duty in the government vehicle and when, he, reached at Rajpura-Khera road, near the house of Naresh Kumar, then, he, noticed number of persons gathered there. On inquiry, he, was apprised that a quarrel had taken place and one person has been taken to Aakash Hospital for treatment, upon which, HC Ajay Kumar, No.20, along with police official had reached Aakash Hospital, on Nalagarh- Baddi road, where, injured was found lying in the vehicle, outside the hospital and his family members were shifting him, in the Ambulance. On inquiry, the name of the injured was found to be Praveen Kumar son of Ram Gopal. Thereafter, the Medical Officer of Aakash Hospital was requested to provide MLC of injured-Praveen Kumar, upon which, he has 4  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) apprised the IO, that no MLC has been conducted, nor, any treatment has been given to him. The family members of the injured took him to another hospital for treatment. 7.1. It is the further case of the police that on the same day, i.e. on 25.06.2025, from PGI Chandigarh, a telephonic information was received, regarding the fact that injured Praveen Kumar, as per CR No.3109002, has been brought for treatment to PGI, Chandigarh, upon which, HC Ajay Kumar, under the leadership of ASI, Jitender Sharma and other police officials reached PGI, Chandigarh, where, in the Trauma Centre, said injured-Praveen Kumar was found admitted. Thereafter, the request for obtaining his MLC was made, upon which, the Doctor had declared him, unfit to make statement. 7.2. However, his brother Gaurav Dhiman moved a complaint before the police, disclosing therein, that he, is resident of village Dhang Nichli, Post Office, Plasi Kalan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. They are two brothers and name of his brother is Praveen Kumar (injured). Both of them are doing the business of manufacturing furniture, for that purpose, they used to hire labour from Peersthan. 7.3. According to him, on 25.06.2025, at about 8:00 AM, his brother had left the house for hiring the labour. 5  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) Then, between 8:30 to 9:00 AM, one unknown person from mobile phone No.98169-31641, informed him that his brother has been injured by his neighbours Amarjeet and Karamjeet. 7.4. According to him, they are having old animosity with them. After injuring Praveen Kumar, he was thrown on Rajpura-Khera road. On this information, complainant along with his family members reached at the spot, where, he found that his brother was lying unconscious. He was having injuries over his arms, legs, mouth, on the head and other parts of the body. Injuries were also there, on the hands of Praveen Kumar. Considering the serious condition of his brother, complainant took him to Aakash Hospital, but keeping in view his serious condition, no treatment was given there and thereafter, he was brought to PGI, Chandigarh. His brother was stated to be unconscious and his condition was serious. 7.5. Lastly, he has got recorded that due to land dispute, Amarjeet and Karamjeet had attacked his brother with the intention to kill him, as such, he has requested that action be taken against them, upon which, the police registered the case under Sections 109, 115(2) & 3(5) of BNS. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by ASI Jitender Sharma. During investigation, efforts were made to nab Karamjeet and 6  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) Amarjeet, but they were not found. However, Amarjeet son of Ram Asra, who has also been named, as accused, appeared before the police, on 26.06.2025, who was apprised about the grounds of arrest and was arrested at 10:30 AM. Thereafter, he was medico legally examined and was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, from where, he was remanded to police custody till 28.06.2025. 7.6. During investigation, said Amarjeet has denied his involvement in the incident and also feigned his ignorance, regarding the involvement of his brother Karamjeet (applicant). Thereafter, ASI Jitender Sharma, inquired from eye-witnesses Sodi Ram and Praveen Kumar. Both of them had disclosed that one person, who had worn yellow coloured T-shirt was having Daraat (big sickle) in his hand and he had beaten the injured-Praveen Kumar, with Daraat and no other person was involved in the incident. They have further revealed that after attacking injured-Praveen Kumar, said person had fled away on motorcycle towards Khera. Later on, both the said eye- witnesses came to know about the assailant, as Karamjeet son of Ram Asra (applicant). The statement of those eye- witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. 7  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) 7.7. During investigation, near by CCTV footages were checked and as per the CCTV footage of the camera, installed at Rajpura Chowk, one person was found to be chasing injured-Praveen Kumar, who had worn yellow coloured T-shirt. Thereafter, mobile phone location, as well as, CDRs of the mobile phone of Amarjeet Singh, bearing Mobile No.97367- 49327, were obtained. The tower location of the mobile phone of Amarjeet was found to be in the area of Peersthan Nalagarh. The statements of the eye-witnesses were got recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, by producing them, in the Court. In their statements before the Court, they have stated about the involvement of only one person and they have also got recorded about the non involvement of Amarjeet in their statements. Amarjeet was released, the provisions of under Section 189 of BNSS. 7.8. It is the further case of the police that there is no reference with regard to the accused, in the statements of the eye-witnesses. As such, according to the police, Test Identification Parade is required to be conducted, whereas, the injured is still admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, but he has again been declared, not fit for statement. The family members of the injured disclosed to the police that there are total 26 8  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) injuries, on the person of injured-Praveen Kumar, for which, 3 surgeries have already been conducted and 2 are yet to be conducted. 7.9. Lastly, it has been stated that the applicant Karamjeet Singh has not joined the investigation. He is required to be investigated, in the case and the weapon of offence, as well as, motorcycle used in the crime is still to be recovered. 7.10. After perusing the status report, interim protection was granted to the applicant and matter was adjourned for 11.07.2025. 7.11. On 11.07.2025, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that the request for treatment summary of the injured and the opinion of the doctor has been made, upon which, his medical record has been received, according to which, 15 injuries were found to be inflicted on the person of injured-Praveen Kumar. However, the final opinion has not been given. 7.12. It is the further case of the police that CDRs of applicant Karamjeet Singh, were perused and it was found that immediately, after the incident, he has made telephonic call to mobile phone No.70180-50505. The said number is found to 9  ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) be registered in the name of Charanpreet Singh son of Sampuran Singh. Thereafter, he has made telephonic call, on mobile phone No.78760-08843, which was found to be issued in the name of Vivek Kumar son of Bhogliya Ram. Both were associated in the investigation and their statements were recorded. 7.13. Charanpreet Singh got recorded in his statement that on 25.06.2025 at about 9:00 AM, Karamjeet Singh (applicant) came to him, on his bike at Bhood, he was wearing yellow coloured T-shirt and requested him to provide the shelter, as, he has killed his neighbour. As per CDRs, the location of Karamjeet Singh (applicant) from 9:21 AM to 9:24 AM was found to be at Bhood. 7.14. Vivek Kumar, in his statement, got recorded that Karamjeet Singh (applicant) called him and inquired about the fact, upon which, he has disclosed that he had killed his neighbour at Rajpura. The location of Karamjeet Singh (applicant) at 2:50 PM, was found to be at Makhnu Majra. 7.15. On inquiry, it was found that his friend Husan Chand is residing in Makhnu Majra. He was also associated in the investigation, who has got recorded that on 25.06.2025, Karamjeet Singh (applicant) came to him. He was wearing 10 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) yellow coloured T-shirt, on that day and having a rucksack on his back. The said witness has also disclosed that the Karamjeet (applicant) disclosed to him, that he had a quarrel with his neighbour and requested him to provide shelter, for which, he has refused and thereafter, said Husan Chand had gone to attend his duty. 7.16. As per CCTV footage, police has concluded that Karamjeet Singh (applicant) has committed the said offence. Karamjeet Singh (applicant) has joined the investigation, however, he has denied his involvement in the crime, whereas, according to the police, on the basis of the statements of witnesses, CCTV footage and the location of his mobile phone, it has been found that the crime has been committed by him. The weapon of offence, motorcycle and bag is yet to be recovered from him. 7.17. During investigation, the police has also recorded statement of Praveen Kumar (injured), who has specifically named the applicant, as the assailant, who had inflicted injuries. 7.18. It is the further case of the police that since eye- witnesses recognize the accused, by face only, and can 11 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) identify him, by seeing him only, as such, Test Identification Parade, is necessary to be conducted. 7.19. Apart from the present case, another case bearing FIR No.100 of 2024, dated 21.04.2025, under Sections 354, 506 & 34 of IPC, has been found to be registered against the applicant, with Police Station, Nalagarh. 7.20. On 18.07.2025, the police has filed status report reiterating the earlier stand. 7.21. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has placed on record photocopy of the compromise, dated 03.05.2012, copy of FIR No.58 of 2013, registered under Sections 325, 323 & 34 of IPC, which was lodged at the instance of Gaurav Dhiman (complainant) and his brother Praveen Kumar (injured) against accused Amarjeet and his brother Karamjeet (applicant). The photocopy of the notice issued under Section 111 Cr.PC., by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nalagarh, photocopy of FIR No.57, dated 28.03.2013, registered at the instance of applicant Karamjeet Singh, photocopy of FIR No.4 of 2014, dated 07.01.2014, photocopy of complaint moved by Praveen Kaur daughter of Ram Asra, sister of applicant Karamjeet, which was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Baddi, levelling 12 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) allegations against injured, as well as, his brother, photocopy of the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in a case, arising out of FIR No.4 of 2014, dated 07.01.2014, under Sections 354(D) & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, by virtue of which, Praveen Kumar (injured), Gaurav Dhiman (complainant) along with Amandeep Singh and Kamal Kishore were convicted for the offences under Sections 354(D) & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC., have also been placed on record by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. 7.22. Heavily relying upon these documents, Mr. N.S Chandel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, has argued that the applicant has been roped-in, in this case, due to the previous animosity. 7.23. Apart from this, it has also been highlighted that the applicant is permanent resident of District Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 7.24. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has argued that both the alleged eye-witnesses are from the same village, as such, their act of not naming the applicant, as 13 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) accused, in their alleged statements/revelation to the police is a fact, which totally destroys the case of the prosecution. 8. Hence, a prayer has been made to allow the application, as prayed for. 9. Per contra, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, as well as, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the complainant have pointed out that the plea of animosity cannot be considered, at this stage, in order to grant the relief to the applicant, as, this plea is double-edged sword and according to Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, the involvement of the applicant, in the crime stands proved from the testimony of both the eye-witnesses, as well as, from the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. 10. At the time of deciding bail application, the meticulous examination of the witnesses should be avoided, as the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the accused. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant, 14 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) have rightly argued that the police has conducted the investigation, in a proper manner, and that’s why the real brother of the applicant has been discharged, in this case. Highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the manner, in which, alleged injuries were inflicted upon the person of injured by the applicant, it has been prayed that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. 12. As per the medical report obtained from PGI Chandigarh, there were as many as, 15 injuries, on the person of injured-Praveen Kumar. As per the main report submitted by Senior Medical Officer, Emergency, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh, the following injuries were found on the person of injured:- 1. Lacerated wounds-2*1 cm over distal phalynx of left little finger and ring finger. 2. Lacerated wound measuring 5*1 cm over right ankle joint. 3. Lacerated wound 18*3 cm along lateral aspect of left distal thigh and knee. 4. Lacerated wound of 5*2 cm over shin of left tibia. 5. Lacerated wound measuring 5*2 cm over flexor aspect of left forearm. 6. Lacerated wound measuring 3*2 cm over anterior aspect of right thigh. 7. Lacerated wound 3*1 cm over right great toe. 8. Periorbital edema and ecchymosis around left eye. 15 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) 9. Lacerated wound around 3*2 cm over right side of frontal region and right temporo-parietal region (scalp) 10. Lacerated wound measuring 6x1 cm on left cheek. 11. Lacerated wound measuring 4x1 cm over right forearm near elbow joint. 12. Lacerated wound measuring 3*1 cm along posterior aspect of right arm. 13. Lacerated measuring 6*2 cm over right wrist medial aspect with open fracture of distal ulna (intact pinprick in all fingers). 14. Lacerated wound measuring 8*3 cm along shin of right Tibia. 15. Lacerated wound measuring 4*1 cm over right Calcaneum. 13. Considering those injuries, as well as, taking into consideration the previous animosity between the parties, on the basis of the documents, so produced on the record, by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, this Court is of the view that granting the relief, as claimed, in the application, will give a wrong signal to the society that after committing, such a heinous offence, the applicant is moving freely in the society. 14. Not only this, it will encourage other persons to take law in their own hands, on account of their animosity, instead of getting the redressal from the Court of law and it will also encourage the concept of street justice, which is antithesis to the rule of law. 16 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) 15. In view of the specific statement of the injured- Praveen Kumar, whatsoever, argued by the learned senior counsel for the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage, as the animosity could be the reasons for inflicting injuries to the injured. 16. In this case, it has been argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, that the applicant has joined the investigation, whereas, it is the specific stand of the police that the applicant has not yet got recovered motorcycle, weapon of offence and bag. In such, situation, this Court is of the view that the police is able to make out a case for custodial interrogation of the applicant. 17. In such situation, being guided by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in a case titled as State represented by the CBI versus Anil Sharma, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187., wherein, it has been held that the custodial interrogation is more result oriented, than, the investigation from the person, who is having the protection, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (now 482 of BNSS), in his favour, this Court is of the view that applicant’s custodial interrogation has rightly been sought. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the 17 ( 2025:HHC:24310 ) applicant is not able to make out a case, for grant of relief, under Section 482 of BNSS, at this stage. As such, the present application is dismissed. 19. 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. 20. Record be returned to the quarter concerned. (Virender Singh) Judge July 25, 2025 (subhash)