2025:HHC:32544 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1716 of 2025 Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025. Punit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent/State: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. For the Complainant/ : Ms Kamlesh, Advocate, vice Mr. Injured H.S. Rana, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 51 of 2022, dated 04.06.2022, registered at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32544 307, 451, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner, his brother, and mother assaulted one Desh Raj, who died subsequently due to the injuries sustained by him. Giano Devi and Satish Kumar also sustained injuries. There is a land dispute between the parties; FIR No. 50 of 2022, dated 04.06.2022, was lodged by the petitioner’s side. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2022, and he has been in custody for more than three years and one month. The co-accused (Kailash Kumar) and the petitioner’s mother have already been enlarged on bail. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. The petitioner is innocent. The family of the deceased was the aggressor. The petitioner’s family has also sustained injuries in the incident. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, hence the petition. 3. The police have filed a status report asserting that the informant, Giano Devi, made a report to the police that she had a dispute over the land with Kunti Devi. Many quarrels had taken place between them. Kunti Devi came to the informant’s 3 2025:HHC:32544 land on 04.06.2022 and threatened to kill her. The petitioner came to the spot and inflicted injuries on the heads of Deshraj, the informant and Satish. The informant and her family members sustained injuries. Gurmail and Amar Nath came to the spot and rescued the informant. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. As per the Medico Legal Certificate, Giano Devi and Satish Kumar had sustained injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. Deshraj was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, for his treatment. He succumbed to his injuries. Challan was prepared and presented before the competent Court. As per the post-mortem report, the death was caused by craniocerebral damage and laceration of the right lung consequent upon blunt impact over the head and chest, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution has cited 43 witnesses, and only nine witnesses remain to be examined. The matter was listed from 04.08.2025 to 06.08.2025 for the prosecution evidence. 4. The complainant/ injured has also filed an objection/ reply to the bail application, asserting that only four official witnesses are to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 10.10.2025. The petitioner is the main 4 2025:HHC:32544 accused, who caused the death of Desh Raj and simple hurt to the informant with an axe. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, and Ms Kamlesh, learned vice counsel representing the complainant/ injured. 6. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The deceased and his family members were the aggressors who had caused hurt to the petitioner and his family members. They lodged a false complaint with the police. The petitioner has been in custody for more than three years. The trial has not been concluded expeditiously, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The family members of the petitioner had also lodged an FIR, which corroborated the petitioner’s version that he was not an aggressor. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be 5 2025:HHC:32544 allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Parmita Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020: HHC:8269, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 11714 of 2022, decided on 15.02.2023, in support of his submission. 7. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner committed a heinous offence which is punishable with capital punishment. The trial is progressing normally, and only four witnesses are to be examined. The petitioner had inflicted the injury leading to the death of Desh Raj, and he cannot claim parity with the co-accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. Ms Kamlesh, learned vice counsel for the complainant/ injured, supported the submission of Mr Prashan Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/ State. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6 2025:HHC:32544 10. 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) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 7 2025:HHC:32544 11. 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 com- bat 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.” 12. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The status report shows that Kunti Devi quarrelled with the informant. Punit Kumar (the present petitioner) followed her and inflicted an injury by means of an axe on the head of Desh Raj. Kailash also came to the spot and inflicted injuries on the informant (Giano Devi). Kunti Devi also picked up an axe and inflicted injury on Satish with it. The allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, show that the petitioner had used an axe, a dangerous weapon, to cause injuries to Desh Raj. Considering the nature of injuries and the part of the body, where the injury was inflicted, a prima facie case for the 8 2025:HHC:32544 commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. 14. Kailash had not used any weapon to cause injury to the deceased, and he was granted bail. Since, in the present case the petitioner had inflicted injuries, therefore, he cannot claim parity with the co-accused. 15. It was submitted that Desh Raj and his family members were aggressors, which is evident from the copy of the FIR lodged at the instance of co-accused Kunti Devi. First, the copy of FIR has not been placed on record, and secondly, the police have filed a cancellation report, which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur; therefore, prima facie, it cannot be concluded that the informant party was the aggressor. 16. In Parmita Devi (supra), the trial was not likely to conclude, and the bail was granted on this consideration. In the present case, the trial is likely to conclude soon, and only four witnesses are to be examined. In Mukesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there were cross versions and the question of aggressor would be decided by the learned Trial Court. In the present case, the police have already filed the 9 2025:HHC:32544 cancellation report in the FIR lodged at the instance of the co- accused (Kunti Devi), which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur; hence, the cited judgments will not help the petitioner. 17. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent/ State that the offence is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offences, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 18. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 19. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th September, 2025 (Anurag)