2025:HHC:32843 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1743 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.9.2025 Date of Decision: 22.9.2025. Pritam Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 192 of 2024, dated 30.11.2024, registered at Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 333, 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32843 2. It has been asserted that the police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the commission of crime. There are no eyewitnesses to the accident. The police have filed the charge sheet, and charges have been framed against the petitioner. The police have cited 26 witnesses, and no witness has been examined so far. The evidence collected by the police does not show any direct involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Pyare Lal was resting in his room on 29.11.2024, at about 9.00 PM. The petitioner called and dared the informant to meet him on the road. The informant told the petitioner that he would not come out of his house. The petitioner told the informant that he (the informant) had abused him. The informant replied that he had no quarrel with the petitioner, and he would not come out of his house. The petitioner and his brother, Kavi, told the informant that they were coming to his house. The informant replied that all his family members had slept; however, the petitioner and co- accused Kavi came to the verandah and attacked the informant’s 3 2025:HHC:32843 father, grandmother and wife. Ajudhya (the informant’s grandmother) sustained injuries to her head. The petitioner and his brother went out of the house and started pelting bricks, stones, etc. Ajudhya Devi was carried to the hospital. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. Ajudhya Devi and co-accused Kavi Raj were undergoing treatment in the hospital. The police checked the CCTV camera and found that the petitioner and co-accused Kavi Raj went to the informant’s house at 9/9.15 PM. Co-accused Kavi Raj took out a darat concealed by him behind his back and assaulted the informant’s family members. The informant and his father ducked and did not suffer any injury. Co-accused Kavi Raj inflicted a blow by means of a darat on the head of Ajudhya Devi, who fell. The CCTV footage was taken into possession. Ajudhya Devi succumbed to her injuries. Police arrested the petitioner and his brother. Co-accused Kavi Raj got recovered the darat concealed by him, which was seized by the police, and sent to the FSL, but no blood was detected on it. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 28.2.2025. Statements of four witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed for recording the 4 2025:HHC:32843 statements of four witnesses on 9.9.2025 and 10.9.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. 5. Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the fatal blow was given by co-accused Kavi Raj. The petitioner had merely accompanied co-accused Kavi Raj. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner accompanied co-accused Kavi Raj. He had called the informant and threatened him. These circumstances show the common intention of the petitioner to commit the crime. The crime is heinous and punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner 5 2025:HHC:32843 would abscond 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 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 6 2025:HHC:32843 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, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558.] 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts against the superficial examination of the bail consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177: “18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the police checked the CCTV footage of the informant’s house and found that co-accused Kavi Raj had concealed a darat, which he took out and used it to assault the informant’s family members. Ajudhya Devi sustained multiple injuries in the incident. In Om Prakash v. State, 1955 SCC OnLine All 372: AIR 1956 All 241: 1956 Cri LJ 452 the accused suddenly took out a knife concealed by him in his shirt 7 2025:HHC:32843 and murdered the deceased. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC was doubtful. It was observed at page 249: “119. In view of the fact that the prosecution evidence did not show any previous concert between these two accused and Om Prakash and the dagger which was suddenly whipped out by the latter was concealed in his shirt, the situation was clearly such as to create a doubt in the mind of the Court and the former accused were entitled to its benefit; hence they were acquitted.” 12. In the present case, the darat was concealed by co-accused Kavi Raj and, prima facie, it is doubtful that he had shared the common intention to kill Ajudhya Devi. 13. In Rahul Singh vs. State of H.P. SLP (CRL.) No.6191/2025, decided on 28.07.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the fatal injuries were caused by the co-accused and observed: “4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case where the role of causing fatal injury is specifically attributed to co-accused, Aditya, from whom recovery of the weapon of assault is said to have been made. There are other incriminatory recoveries, such as of blood- stained clothes, etc., which are all from the other accused and not from the appellant. It is next contended that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents, and if he is admitted to bail, there is no likelihood of his misusing the same.” 8 2025:HHC:32843 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the main role of causing injury to the deceased was ascribed to the co- accused and there were no criminal antecedents, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail pending trial. It was observed: “6. We have considered the rival submissions. Having regard to the fact that no specific role is attributed to the appellant in the first information report and the main role of causing injury to the deceased is ascribed to co- accused, Aditya, from whom incriminatory recovery is made and that the respondent-State has failed to point out any criminal antecedents of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending trial.” 15. In the present case, the main role has been ascribed to the co-accused. Prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner with the aid of Section 34 is doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 16. Consequently, 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - 9 2025:HHC:32843 (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 on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (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 SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) 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. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Dharamshala, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 10 2025:HHC:32843 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 20. 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 the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd September, 2025 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2025.09.22 14:04:32 +0530