2025:HHC:2989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.2872/2024 a/w CR. MP(M) No.2886 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13th January, 2025. 1. Cr.MP(M) No.2872 of 2024 Praveen Kumar .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. 2. Cr. MP(M) No.2886 of 2024 Parbhat Kumar .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Negi, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral). The bail petitions, in the case at hand, are being taken up together, as they are arising out from the common FIR. The present bail petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail. The same arises out of FIR No.63/24, dated 12.06.2024, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the status report. Copy whereof, has also been supplied to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 3. That the incident, in the case at hand, is dated 11.06.2024. The deceased, in the case at hand, one Arun 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:2989 Kumar, was working in the Intelligence Bureau (IB). On the fateful day of 11.06.2024, Arun Kumar accompanied by one Head Constable Kamal Jeet Singh at about 8:15 PM had gone to a shop (chicken corner) of one Raj Kumar. Therein they both had sat down to consume liquor. 4. Once in an inebriated state, the deceased had entered into an argument with Raj Kumar (owner of the shop). The flash point for the argument inter se the deceased and Raj Kumar being that the deceased under the influence of liquor asserted that he had sex with the entire women folk of that area. This had infuriated the shop owner i.e. Raj Kumar. 5. The verbal altercation had led to a minor scuffle inter se the deceased and the shop owner. Kamal Jeet Singh, the Head Constable accompanying the deceased had separated the two, but despite having separated the two, the deceased continued with his foul talk. The same yet again infuriated the shop owner. The shop owner went inside the shop, picked up a stick and informed the two bail petitioners and one Anil Kumar, who were sitting inside the shop of the tall foul claim being made by the deceased in an intoxicated stage. 6. On this, one of the occupants of the shop namely Anil Kumar had picked up a Frying Pan and hit the deceased on his head. Thereafter, as per the prosecution, the deceased had mercilessly beaten by the shop owner (Raj Kumar). The allegation against the present bail petitioners being that they had abused the deceased and nothing more. 3 2025:HHC:2989 7. The investigation, in the case at hand, is complete and post completion of investigation, challan in case at hand has been filed before the concerned Court on 05.09.2024. The matter is listed today for recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 8. While deciding the question of grant or refusal of bail, one of the factors that has to be taken into account is the part played by the accused in the commission of the offence. The common intention being attributed to the present petitioners is a question of fact to be determined at the stage of trial. 9. Solely denying bail to the bail petitioners for commission of an offence under Section 302 of IPC by being members of an alleged unlawful assembly at this stage seems to be not correct. In this respect, reference can be made to judgment reported as Latest Himachal HLJ (2003) HP 23, titled Jeet Ram Vs. State of HP & Ors. 10. At the time of deciding the bail petition, a detailed discussion of evidence so collected and produced by the prosecution, is to be avoided, as it may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the accused/applicant. 11. Trial is going to take time for its conclusion. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. No past criminal history has been attributed to the present bail petitioners. Further detention of the accused would not serve any fruitful purpose, rather would prove pre-judicial to the rights of the petitioners. 4 2025:HHC:2989 12. Punishment begins after conviction. Every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. 13. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. 14. The respondent/State in the status report filed have not expressed any apprehension regarding the petitioners fleeing from the course of justice and adversely affecting the trial by intimidating the witnesses. In this regard, suffice it to state that the petitioners can be put to terms for the purpose of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial. 15. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, who have been arrested by the police, in FIR No.63/24, dated 12.06.2024, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand] each 5 2025:HHC:2989 with one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-. (i) Petitioners shall 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 appropriate application; (ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; (iv) Petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (v) Petitioners shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about their place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; & (vi) It is made clear that in case petitioners are arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then their bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. 16. Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioners. 17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 18. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District-cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba at Rajpura, District Chamba, H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 6 2025:HHC:2989 19. In case, the petitioners are not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District-cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba at Rajpura, District Chamba, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Chamba. The Superintendent, District-cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba at Rajpura, District Chamba, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioners fail to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court. 20. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District-cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba at Rajpura, District Chamba, H.P. and the learned trial Court by FASTER. 21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioners and in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Bipin Chander Negi) Vacation Judge 13th January, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat) Digitally signed by VANDNA SHARMA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=d3b84f3143a60e693f007f9c5e0fe88 152279f1d9f450a0255823cfc38862034, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=3a417623218f5838c6af7 9de7dc1906f731266758b23a4f74fad98f002 2165e3, CN=VANDNA SHARMA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-01-13 16:47:05 VANDNA SHARMA