2025:HHC:31754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.  : 2087 of 2025 Reserved on   :    08.09.2025 Decided on     :    16.09.2025 Manoj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant  : Mr. Suram Singh Rana & Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocates. For the respondent   : Mr. Varun   Chandel,   Additional Advocate   General   assisted   by   HC Rajeev   No.14,   Police   Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Manoj  Kumar   has  filed  the   present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.40 of 2024, dated 24.05.2024, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:31754 Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) with   Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person   and   has   falsely   been   implicated,   in   the   present case. The incident, in question, is stated to have taken place, all of a sudden, between the two parties, with regard to possession of the land. 3. To buttress his contentions, the applicant has further pleaded that FIR No. 39/24, dated 23.05.2024, was registered, at the instance of applicant Manoj Kumar with Police   Station,   Sujanpur,   District   Hamirpur,   under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC, in which, later on, Section 325 IPC was also added. 4. In a nut­shell, it is the case of the applicant that it is a case of free­fight, with regard to a piece of land. Elaborating his stand, the applicant further pleaded that the   complainant   party   had   been   quarreling   with   the applicant’s family for the last 15­20 days and claiming the boundary of their field 20 feet away towards the land of the applicant. 3 2025:HHC:31754 5. In this regard, the pendency of the Civil Suit titled as Jeetu @ Ranjeet Singh versus Braham Dass & Another, has also been relied upon. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation,   in   the   present   case,   is   complete   and   no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody. It is also the case of the applicant that the complainant party was aggressor and they have attacked upon the applicant and his family members in a pre­planned manner. The applicant, in this regard, also relied upon the CCTV footage, which, according to him, was   taken   into   possession   by   the   Police   during   the investigation. 7. The applicant has sought the relief of bail, on the ground of parity, as his co­accused, namely Mangla Devi, Kanchana Devi and Bimla Devi, have already been released on bail, by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the said orders have also been assailed before this Court, by way of Cr.MP (M) Nos. 2217, 2218, 2219 of 2024, which were dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2025. 4 2025:HHC:31754 8. Apart   from   the   above,   learned   counsel appearing   for   the   applicant,   has   given   certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant   is   ready   to   abide   by,   in   case,   ordered   to   be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.05.2024, one Yuvraj, S/o Rania Ram, informed the police that his father has been beaten by Ranjeet Singh and his family members, due to   which,   his   father   has   been   taken   to   Hospital   at Hamirpur, for treatment. As such, he has requested that action be taken against the said persons. 11. Subsequently, on the information of Yuvraj, the police reached at Medical College and Hospital, Hamirpur, where,   Rania   Ram,   Ravinder   Kumar,   Soma   Devi   and Neelma   Devi   were   found   to   be   admitted   for   treatment. Thereafter, the request was made to the doctor, for medico­ legal examination of the aforesaid persons/injured. At the spot,   Ravinder   Kumar,   S/o   Sikh   Ram,   has   made   a 5 2025:HHC:31754 statement, under Section 154 of CrPC, disclosing therein that   on   23.05.2024,   in   the   evening,   he,   along   with   his sister­in­law Soma Devi, brother Rania Ram, Yuvraj S/o Rania   Ram,   his   wife   Neelma   Devi   and   his   sister­in­law Reena Kumari, had gone to their field to throw cow dung. 12. Thereafter, at about 06:30 pm, when, they were throwing the cow dung in the field, then, both sons of Ranjeet   Singh,   namely   Manoj   Kumar   (applicant)   and Rakesh Kumar, their wives and mother Bimla Devi, came there and started abusing them, upon which, complainant party   requested   them   not   to   abuse. Then,   they   started throwing   the   wooden   sticks   in   their   field,   which,   the complainant   party   had   removed. Upon   this,   Rakesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (applicant) started beating them with the same wooden sticks. Manoj Kumar inflicted the injury with the wooden sticks on the head of sister­in­law of the complainant, upon which, she sustained injuries. Rakesh Kumar slapped the wife of the complainant thrice. Rakesh Kumar had also beaten Yuvraj, who had tried to save them. 6 2025:HHC:31754 13. Thereafter,   Manoj   Kumar   (applicant)   came there, along with the wooden stick and inflicted the blow on the head of the complainant, which resulted into injury on his head. When, his brother Rania Ram came there to save   them,   then,   Manoj   Kumar   (applicant)   and   Rakesh Kumar also gave four blows on the person of his brother. Consequently, he became unconscious and blood started oozing out from his nose and mouth. The wives of Manoj Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were also associated in the said incident. 14. It is the case of the police that Rakesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar (applicant) had also claimed that they will   kill   the   complainant   party. Both   the   brothers, according to the complainant, had inflicted four blows in order to kill his brother Rania Ram. 15. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC. 16. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on 23.05.2024, the statements of Soma Devi and Neelma Devi, under Sections 161 of CrPC, were recorded. Subsequently, Manoj Kumar (applicant) and Rakesh Kumar, both sons of 7 2025:HHC:31754 Ranjeet Singh, were arrested  on 24.05.2024. Both were medico   legally   examined. As  per  MLC,  12  injuries   were found on the person of Manoj Kumar (applicant). However, injuries No.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 were declared as simple, whereas, the opinion, regarding injuries No.3, 5 and 12, had been deferred till the receipt of the report of Radiologist, whereas, on the person of Rakesh Kumar, 9 injuries   were   stated   to   have   been   found,   as   per   MLC. However, injuries No.2 to 8 were declared simple and blunt and   opinion,   regarding   injuries   No.1   and   9,   had   been deferred till the receipt of the report of Radiologist. 17. It is the further case of the police that there is a dispute with regard to the land, between the parties and on 23.05.2024, at about 06:30 pm, a quarrel had taken place, between the parties. The accused party had also lodged FIR No.39 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024, under Sections 341, 323, 504,   506   and   34   of   IPC,   with   Police   Station   Sujanpur, against the complainant party. During the scuffle, accused persons also sustained injuries. 18. It is the further case of the police that accused Manoj   Kumar   (applicant)   and   Rakesh   Kumar   were 8 2025:HHC:31754 produced,   before   the   Court,   from   where,   they   were remanded   to   the   judicial   custody. On   25.05.2024,   both accused persons had made the statement, under Section 27   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act. In   pursuance   of   their statements,   police   had   recovered   the   alleged   weapon   of offence i.e. wooden stick, which was taken into possession. 19. Thereafter,   on   28.05.2024,   during   the treatment, Rania Ram had expired. The post­mortem of deceased Rania Ram was conducted and his dead body was handed over to his son Yuvraj. As such, Section 302 of IPC has been added and Section 307 of IPC was deleted, in this case. 20. It is the further case of the police that accused Bimla Devi, Kanchna Devi and Mangla Devi had filed the applications   for   bail,   before   the   learned   trial   Court. However, their applications were rejected on 12.06.2024. Subsequently, they appeared before the police on the same day   and   they   were   associated   in   the   investigation. Thereafter, they were arrested on 12.06.2024. 21. It is the further case of the police that as per the   statements   of   witnesses,   accused   Rakesh   Kumar, 9 2025:HHC:31754 Manoj   Kumar   (applicant),   Mangla   Devi,  Bimla   Devi  and Kanchna   Devi,   after   hatching   conspiracy,   had   started quarreling   with   the   complainant   party   and   in   the   said quarrel, Rania Ram had sustained fatal injuries, whereas, Ravinder Kumar, Soma Devi and Neelma Devi had also sustained injuries. 22. It is also mentioned in the status report that the investigation, in the present case is complete and the police has filed the charge­sheet against accused Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar (applicant), Bimla Devi, Kanchana Devi and Mangla Devi, under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 IPC, which is now listed for 26.09.2025, for PWs. 23. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 24. In   this   case,   criminal   machinery   was   swung into motion by Ravinder Kumar, who has got recorded his statement,   under   Section   154   Cr.PC,   in   which,   he   has deposed that when they were putting the cow dung in their field,   then,   accused   Manoj   Kumar   (applicant),   Rakesh Kumar along with their wives and mother, have started abusing,   upon   which,   the   complainant   party   requested 10 2025:HHC:31754 them   not   to   abuse. Thereafter,   the   complainant   party started removing the branches of trees from there, which were thrown in the said field, upon which, Rakesh Kumar and Manoj started beatings them, with those branches. 25. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant qua the free­fight is not liable to be ignored, at this   stage,   and   his   arguments   qua   the   fact   that   the ingredients of Section 302 IPC have not been made out, is also not liable to be ignored. 26. From   the   stand   taken   by   the   applicant,   the occurrence on behalf of the complainant party has been admitted,  in  which,  both  the  parties  sustained  injuries. The accused­party, had lodged FIR No.39/24, whereas, the complainant­party   lodged   FIR   No.40/2024,   against   the accused person. 27. It is also the case of the police that there was a land dispute between the parties and on 23.05.2024, at about   6.30   p.m.,   the   incident   of   quarreling   had   taken place, between the parties, qua which, FIR No.39/24, has been registered on behalf of the accused­party against the complainant party. 11 2025:HHC:31754 28. It   is   also   the   admitted   case   that   in   FIR No.39/24, which was lodged at the instance of accused persons, the police, later on, added Section 325 IPC, on the basis of X­ray reprot of accused Rakesh Kumar. From the said fact, at this stage, it can be said that, it would be proved, during the trial as to which party was aggressor. 29. Another fact, which, at this stage, could not be ignored, is that three accused have already been released on bail and the allegations against all the five accused, almost are the same, as, PW Soma Devi, in her statement, before the learned trial Court, has deposed that accused Kanchna Devi, had hit him with the branches of trees. When, similar role has been attributed to all the accused persons, in the present case, then, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the application. 30. Even considering the pace of trial,  no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial   custody,   that   too,   for   indefinite   period,   as   the accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, by the competent Court of law. 12 2025:HHC:31754 31. The applicant is permanent resident of District Hamirpur, as such, it cannot be said that in case, he is released on bail, he may not be available for trial. 32. In   the   status   report,   it   has   also   not   been apprehended that in case the applicant is released on bail, he may coerce the witnesses. 33. Keeping in view the fact that both the parties are   from   the   same   village,   stringent   conditions   can   be imposed upon the applicant, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 34. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 35. Consequently,   the   applicant   is   ordered   to be released on bail in case  FIR No.40 of 2024, dated 24.05.2024, registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504,   506   and   34   of   the   IPC   with   Police   Station Sujanpur,   District   Hamirpur,   H.P.,   on   his   furnishing personal   bonds,   in   the   sum   of 50,000/­,   with   two ₹ sureties   of   the   like   amount,   to   the   satisfaction   of   the learned trial Court. 13 2025:HHC:31754 36. This   order,   however,   shall   be   subject   to   the following conditions: a) The   applicant   shall   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 application; b)    The   applicant   shall   not   tamper   with   the prosecution   evidence   nor   hamper   the investigation   of   the   case   in   any   manner whatsoever; c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat   or   promises   to   any   person   acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing   such   facts to   the   Court   or the   Police Officer; and d)    The   applicant   shall   not   leave   the   territory   of India without the prior permission of the Court. 37. 37. 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. 38. It   is   made   clear   that   respondent­State   is   at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 39. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, 14 2025:HHC:31754 Hamirpur,   Himachal   Pradesh,   through   e­mail,   with   a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software. 40. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail,  District Jail, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Hamirpur. The Superintendent of Jail,  District Jail, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. Record be returned to the quarter concerned. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 16, 2025 (ps) RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.09.16 13:26:56 +0530