Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22632 (HP)

NAND LAL v. STATE OF HP

CRMPM/1991/2025 · 2025-09-09

Virender Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:30667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 1991 of 2025 Reserved On : 04.09.2025 Decided on: 09.09.2025 Nand Lal …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant      :  Mr. Kuldeep Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma   and   Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with   Mr. Rohit   Sharma   and   Ms. Ranjna   Patial,   Deputy   Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge (  oral ) Applicant   Nand   Lal   has   filed   the   present application,   under   Section   483   of   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing  him, on  bail,  during  the  pendency of the  trial, arising   out   of   FIR   No.   38/2025,   dated   29.05.2025, 2 2025:HHC:30667 registered under Sections 109(1) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNS), with Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he has surrendered himself   to  the   Court,   when  he  came   to  know   about   the registration of the case. All these facts have been pleaded to show that the applicant is innocent and is not involved in the alleged crime, as, he has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. As per the applicant, the investigation of the case is complete and applicant is in judicial custody. No recovery is stated to be effected from the conscious possession of the applicant. 4. The   applicant   has   also   highlighted   his   clean antecedents to seek the relief of bail. 5. The   applicant   had   earlier   tried   his   luck   by moving   similar   application,   before   the   Court   of   learned Additional   Sessions   Judge,   (CBI),   Shimla. However,   the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2025. 6. The   applicant,   through   his   counsel,   has 3 2025:HHC:30667 undertaken  to  abide   by  the   terms  and   conditions,  to   be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the the trial. 7. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application and release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein, that on 29.05.2025, the statement   of   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   recorded   under Section 173 BNSS, was forwarded by ASI Sukhdev Singh. In the said statement, the complainant got recorded that he is resident of Village Bamnol, Post Office Sari, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.  According to him, he is agriculturist by profession. On 29.05.2025, he along with his younger brother Manoj, had gone to their cowshed at Naun from their village Bamnol, at about 8:15 am, alongwith fodder loaded on mule. 8.1 It has also been mentioned in the said status report that at about 9:30 am, they reached at Medehi Ka Nala (rivulet). At Medehi Ka Nala, Nand Lal son of Sh. Hari 4 2025:HHC:30667 Ram (applicant) was grazing his goats. At Medehi Ka Nala, as soon as, his brother connected the water pipe for their village Bamnol, then, a verbal altercation took place between Nand Lal and his brother, with regard to grazing of goats. During that verbal altercation, Nand Lal (applicant), who was having a dangru (stick having a blade affixed on it), had inflicted a blow on the left side of neck of his brother Manoj. 8.2 Consequently, his brother Manoj sustained deep wound and blood started oozing out from his neck. The complainant tried to save his brother Manoj. Meanwhile, Nand Lal (applicant) fled away from there towards jungle along with dangru and threatened that he had killed Manoj and he will also finish them, if he get opportunity within a day   or   two. Thereafter,   the   police   was   informed   and   his brother was sent to IGMC Shimla, for treatment. 8.3 On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that the action be taken against the applicant. 8.4 After registration of FIR, police machinery swung into motion. Thereafter, the I.O. visited the spot and from the spot, blood stained stones were taken into possession. 5 2025:HHC:30667 Thereafter, MLC of injured Manoj was obtained from IGMC Shimla. Doctor has opined that the injury is dangerous to life, caused with sharp edged weapon. The injured was also declared unfit to give statement. 8.5 Accused (applicant) was arrested on 29.05.2025 and was produced before the Court, on 30.05.2025, from where, he was remanded to police custody for four days. 8.6 On   31.05.2025,   applicant   made   a   statement under Section 23 BSA and got recorded in the statement that the dangru, with which, he had inflicted the injury on the person of Manoj Kumar, had been kept/concealed by him in his cowshed in Naun and he can identify the said place and get the same recovered, as only he is having the knowledge   of   the   same. Upon   this,   his   statement   was recorded and thereafter, in pursuance of the said statement, the applicant in the presence of witnesses and police party got recovered the dangru, which was kept on the rear wall of the   cowshed,   alongwith   wearing   apparels,   which   he   had worn at the time of incident. All the articles were taken into possession. 6 2025:HHC:30667 8.7 Thereafter,   the   treatment   summary   of   injured was obtained and the Medical Officer has declared the injury as grievous and dangerous to life. The injury has also been said to be possible with the weapon shown to her. 8.8 As per the status report, the charge­sheet has been filed in this case, on 07.08.2025. 8.9 Lastly,   it   has   been   apprehended   that   the applicant has inflicted injury on the neck of injured Manoj, with an intention to kill him and due to his act, there is a lot of resentment in the area and in case, he is released on bail, he may commit same serious offence, may also coerce the witnesses to depose in his favour and may not be available for the trial. 8.10 On   the   basis   of   above   facts,   a   prayer   for dismissal of the application has been made. 9. The applicant and injured Manoj are of the same area and merely on the ground that the charge­sheet has been filed, the apprehension, which has been expressed, in the status report, cannot be said to be unfounded, as the possibility of coercing the injured and the complainant by 7 2025:HHC:30667 the applicant cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 10. Moreover,   the   manner   in   which   the   crime   in question,   as   per   the   status   report,   has   been   committed, speaks about the seriousness of the offence and in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, it will give wrong signal to the society that after committing such a heinous offence, the applicant is moving freely in the society and it will   also   allure/encourage   other   like­minded   people   to commit such type of offence. 11. Considering   the   observations   and   discussions, made above, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not   entitled   to   relief   of   bail,   at   this   stage. As   such,   the present application is dismissed. 12. 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. (Virender Singh) 09th September, 2025 Judge (Pramod Kumar)