2025:HHC:24716 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MPM No. 1635 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.07.2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 Kushal Singh alias Kushal Samrat .... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent- State : Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 05 of 2025, dated 27.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 115(2), and 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. ____________ 2 2025:HHC:24716 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution the , petitionerand some other persons were consuming liquor at Buthli Bazar. The petitioner/accused started abusing the informant, which led to the altercation between him and the informant. The informant tried to leave the spot; however, the petitioner inflicted a blow to the informant’s stomach with a knife. The informant tried to stop the petitioner; however, the petitioner inflicted another blow. The informant sustained injury on the thumb of his right hand. The allegations are false. The petitioner was assaulted by the informant and Yashwant. He filed a complaint before the police, and F.I.R. No. 7 of 2025 dated 28.01.2025 was registered based on his complaint. The petitioner is innocent, and there is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. He is suffering from various ailments. The investigation is complete, and the police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, Yashwant, Balkrishan, Vicky, and 3 2025:HHC:24716 the petitioner were consuming liquor on 26.01.2025 at 9:30 p.m. The petitioner abused the informant, which led to an altercation. The informant tried to leave the spot, but the petitioner stopped him and inflicted a blow on his stomach with a knife. The petitioner again inflicted a blow, and the informant stopped it with his hand. He suffered an injury on his right thumb. The informant was taken to the Hospital, and intimation was given to the police. The police conducted the investigation and seized the blood-stained soil from the spot. As per the report of the analysis, the DNA in the soil matched the DNA of the informant’s blood. The petitioner was arrested, and he made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of the knife. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the knife produced by the petitioner could have caused the injuries sustained by the informant. The injuries were dangerous to life. The charge- sheet has been filed before the Court, and the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 30.07.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4 2025:HHC:24716 5. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The informant and Yashwant gave beatings to the petitioner, and he had reported the matter to the police. He was also medically examined, but the status report is silent regarding the injuries sustained by him. The circumstances on record do not show that the petitioner had inflicted injury with an intent to murder the informant, and the possibility of inflicting the injury in self-defence cannot be ruled out. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court, 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. 6. Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had inflicted repeated blows upon the informant, which shows his intention. The injury was caused on the stomach by a sharp-edged weapon, and the nature of the injury was described to be grievous by the Medical Officer. The petitioner lodged F.I.R. No. 7 of 2025, dated 28.01.2025, on the next day of the incident, to save himself. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:24716 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 as to 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 (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) 6 2025:HHC:24716 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 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) 7 2025:HHC:24716 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 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 8 2025:HHC:24716 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. Perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner and informant had an altercation. The petitioner took out the knife and inflicted injury upon the informant’s stomach. The use of the knife to cause injury to the stomach, which is found to be dangerous to life, can only lead to an inference that if the death had been caused, the petitioner would have been guilty of murder. Therefore, the circumstances on record, prima facie, connect the petitioner to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS. The offence is heinous and the offender is liable to be sentenced for imprisonment for life. Considering the nature of the offence and the imprisonment that can be awarded, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 13. A heavy reliance was placed upon the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner. This F.I.R. was lodged on 28.01.2025, the next day 9 2025:HHC:24716 of the incident. It mentions that the informant and Yashwant gave beatings to the petitioner with kicks and fist blows. Even if this version is accepted to be correct, it does not justify the use of the sharp-edged weapon by the petitioner. Hence, prima facie, the plea taken by the petitioner that he had caused injuries while exercising his right to private defence cannot be accepted. The matter is at the initial stage. The trial has not started, and releasing the petitioner on bail would affect the fair trial adversely. Hence, petitioner cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 14. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 15. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th July, 2025 (ravinder)