1 ( 2025:HHC:26837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1770 of 2025 a/w Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1767 to 1769 of 2025 Reserved on:- 04.08.2025 Date of Decision: 08.08.2025 Cr.MP(M) No.1770 of 2025 Bablu …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent ________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No.1767 of 2025 Govind Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent ________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No.1768 of 2025 Bitu (Anand) …Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent ________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No.1769 of 2025 Ashish …Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:26837 For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by ASI Vinod Kumar, Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for the complainant(s). Virender Singh, Judge The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as, all the bail applications have been filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) by the applicants, for releasing them, on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case arising out of FIR No.78 of 2025, dated 28.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the BNS) with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest, as such, they have filed the present applications, on the ground that they are innocent persons and no role to play in the alleged crime. According to them, they have falsely been implicated in this case. 3 ( 2025:HHC:26837 3. Elaborating their stand, they have pleaded that the partition proceedings were initiated by the applicants, in the Court of learned Assistant Collector, Rohru. The said application has been allowed by the competent authority. However, feeling dissatisfied with the said order, father of the complainant, Chatru had filed appeal before the learned Collector, Sub Division, Rohru, which was dismissed 05.08.2024. 4. It is the further case of the applicants that after finalization of those proceedings, the revenue officials had visited the spot, in order to hand over the possession. The complainant, his father and other family members had started pelting stones on the applicants. Due to said incident, FIR No.77 of 2025, dated 28.06.2025 under Sections 126 (2), 252, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS was registered, against the complainant and his family members and the present FIR, is stated to be counter blast to the said FIR. 5. The applicants have earlier tried their luck by moving similar bail applications, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., however, their applications were dismissed on 23.07.2025. 4 ( 2025:HHC:26837 6. In addition to this, the pendency of the civil proceedings has also been put forward, as, one of the grounds to seek the relief of bail. 7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Investigating Officer/Police of Police Station, Rohru, under Section 482 of BNSS. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the applications. 9. When, put to notice, the police had filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 28.06.2025, ASI, Vinod Kumar, along with other police officials had reached Civil Hospital, Rohru, in order to verify the factual position, as recorded in connection with Rapat No.23. It was found that Shyam Lal and his brother Jitender, were admitted in the hospital for treatment. Their medico legal examination was conducted. 9.1. Thereafter, complainant Jitender moved the complaint, mentioning therein, that on 28.06.2025 with regard to partition of their land, Kanungo and Patwari reached at the spot for partition of the land. Their co-villagers namely, Amar Sukh 5 ( 2025:HHC:26837 son of Sodru was also present there. The complainant has requested Amar Sukh to leave that place, upon which, he, along with Govind Singh, Bablu, Bitu Ram and Ashish Kumar (applicants) become furious and attacked the complainant and his brother with stones and Dandas. Consequently, both of them had sustained injuries. 9.2. On the basis of the above facts, he had prayed that action be taken against them, upon which, the police has registered the FIR in question. 9.3. During investigation, complainant and his brother were referred to IGMC, Shimla, On 01.07.2025, complainant Jitender and Shyam appeared before the police along with documents, upon which, the opinion of the doctor was obtained. The doctor declared the injury, on the head of Shyam Lal, as blunt, as such, Section 117(2) of BNS, was added. 9.4. Spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Complainant-Jitender has produced two stones and one Danda, which were allegedly used by the applicants, which were also taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, under Section 180 of BNSS. On the basis of those statements, Sections 191(2), 191 (3) and 190 of BNS, were deleted from the case. 6 ( 2025:HHC:26837 9.5. On 05.07.2025, the opinion of the doctor was obtained, with regard to two stones, which were allegedly used, in the said incident, upon which, the doctor has opined that Injury No.1, as mentioned, in the MLC, may be possible due to stones Weapon No.1. 9.6. On 08.07.2025, Govind Singh, Bablu, Bitu Ram and Ashish (applicants) were associated in the investigation and were released on bail. 9.7. On 17.07.2025, the medical opinion regarding injury on the head of Shyam Lal was obtained, upon which, the doctor has given his opinion, which has been mentioned as under:- “(i) Injury No.1. Facts, under Clause-08 of BNS, 116 i.e. Any hurt, which endangers Life”. 9.8. As such, Section 109 of BNS, was added, in this case. 9.9. Apart from this, a stand has been taken that all the four accused persons, on 19.07.2025 had filed the similar applications, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, however, those applications were dismissed on 23.07.2025. 9.10. On the basis of above stand of the police, on 24.07.2025, interim protection was granted to the applicants and matter was adjourned for 04.08.2025. On 04.08.2025, police 7 ( 2025:HHC:26837 had filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the applicants have not joined the investigation. 9.11. Apart from this, a stand has also been taken that due to the land dispute, the applicants had caused injuries to injured Shyam Lal, which according to the police, are dangerous to life. 9.12. According to the police, the applicants have already lodged FIR No.77 of 2025, dated 28.06.2025, as an attempt to save themselves. Investigation is going on and in case, the interim order is made absolute, the applicants may coerce the independent witnesses and may also influence the investigation. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the applications. 11. In this case, it has not been disputed that the FIR No.77 of 2025, was got lodged by the applicants, against the complainant and his brother. Meaning thereby, the occurrence has not been disputed by the parties and it would be proved, during the investigation, as who was the aggressor. 12. When, the Police has not pleaded that custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, in this case, then, dismissal of the bail applications, would be nothing, but a pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. 8 ( 2025:HHC:26837 13. No other case is found to have been registered against the applicants. 14. The applicants are permanent residents of District Shimla, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim orders dated 24.07.2025, are made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 15. Although, it has been submitted in the status report that the applicants were earlier arrested and released, however, a stand has also been taken on 17.07.2025, the doctor has given his opinion over Injury No.1, of the person of Shyam Lal, upon which, Section 109 of BNS was added, in this case. 16. Admittedly, the liberty, which has been given to the applicants on 08.07.2025 has not been misused by them, nor, it is the case of the police. In such situation, this Court is of the view that merely mentioning the fact that the applicants have not joined the investigation is too short to decline the relief to the applicants, as directions, can be issued to the applicants to join the investigation, in case, the interim orders are made absolute. 17. Once, the earlier liberty has not been misused by the applicant, then, whatsoever, apprehended in the status report is not sufficient to decline the relief to the applicants, as, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed. 9 ( 2025:HHC:26837 18. Consequently, interim orders, dated 24.07.2025 are made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in case FIR No.78 of 2025, dated 28.06.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 109 & 3(5), of BNS, with Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 19. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so 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 the appropriate applications; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 20. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the 10 ( 2025:HHC:26837 case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications. 21. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate applications, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicants. 22. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case files i.e. Cr.MP(M) Nos.1767 to 1769 of 2025. (Virender Singh) Judge August 08, 2025 (subhash)