Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33388 (HP)

AKHTAR ALI v. STATE OF HP

CRMPM/2857/2025 · 2025-12-15

Virender Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:HHC:43593 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) Nos. : 2855 to 2858  of 2025 Decided on    : 15.12.2025 Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2855 of 2025 Taj Mohammad …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2856 of 2025 Shakeel Mohammad …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2857 of 2025 Akhtar Ali …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2858 of 2025 Firoj Khan …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:43593 For the applicant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent       : Mr.   H.S.   Rawat   and   Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick,   Additional Advocates   General,   with   Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate   General,   assisted   by ASI   Jitender   Sharma,   I.O., Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The   above­titled   bail   applications   are   being disposed  of  by  the  common  order,  as,  all   the   four   bail applications   have   been   filed,   under   Section   482   of   the Bharatiya   Nagrik   Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023   (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), for releasing them on bail, in the event   of   their   arrest   in   case,   arising   out   of  FIR   No. 343/2025,   dated   02.11.2025,   registered   with  Police Station   Nalagarh,   District   Solan,   H.P.,  under   Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’). 2. According   to   the   applicants,   they   are apprehending   their   arrest,   however,   they   are   innocent persons, having no concern whatsoever, with the crime in 3 2025:HHC:43593 question and have falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. According to the applicants, they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court, in the event of the bail being granted. 4. The applicants have tried their luck by moving similar   bail   applications   before   the   learned   Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, the   bail   applications   were   dismissed,   vide   order   dated 04.12.2025. 5. Vide order dated 05.12.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed. 6. As per the status report, which has been filed today,   on   02.11.2025,   when   ASI   Jitender   Sharma,   I.O. Police Station Nalagarh, along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, then, from helpline No. 112, he had received the information that at a place Nangal, a quarrel had   taken   place,   and   consequently,   two   persons   were taken to hospital, in injured condition. Upon this, ASI Jitender Sharma, reached CHC Nalagarh, in order to verify 4 2025:HHC:43593 the   said   fact,   where   injured   Mohammad   Arif   and Mohammad   Tahir,   were   found   admitted   in   injured condition. Their   medico   legal   examination   was   got conducted from the hospital. Regarding the injuries found on the person of injured­Mohammad Arif, X­ray and MRI were advised, whereas regarding injured Mohammad Tahir, the Doctor had advised NCCT Head. 6.1 On the spot, complainant Sultan Mohammad, made a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is permanent resident   of   Village   Banyala,   Post   Office   Jogoon,   Tehsil Panjehra, District Solan, H.P. 6.2 According to him, on that day, he had gone to Nangal   to   attend   a   marriage   at   River   View   Hotel. His nephew Arif Mohammad (injured) disclosed him that he was sitting in his vehicle, then, from vehicle No. HP03B­ 0006, four persons came out, whom he named as Kaku Khan,   Aktar   Ali,   Shakeel   Mohammad   and   Firoj   Khan, resident of Village Navagrawn Post Office Majara, Tehsil Panjehra, came out and all the four persons attacked him with sharp edged weapon. Due to this act, Arif Mohammad and Tahir sustained injuries. The said assailants tried to 5 2025:HHC:43593 kill them. He took the injured to the hospital and informed the relatives, as well as, the father of Arif. 6.3 According to him, the attack was to kill them and the assailants may again attack them. As such, he prayed that the action be taken against the assailants. 6.4 After   the   registration   of   the   FIR,   spot   was visited, spot map was prepared. Photographs were clicked. Statements of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, were recorded. The report from Regional Hospital Solan, were obtained. On the basis of these reports, CHC Nalagarh has given the final opinion that the injuries were grievous in nature, upon which, Section 118(2) of BNS was added, in this case. 6.5 Accused persons had tried their luck by moving similar applications before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, their applications were dismissed on 04.12.2025. 6.6 After   perusing   the   said   status   report,   on 05.12.2025,   interim   protection   was   granted   to   the applicants and matter has been adjourned for today. 6 2025:HHC:43593 6.7 Today, the police has filed the status report, disclosing   therein,   that   the   applicants   have   joined   the investigation and the vehicle involved in the incident, was also taken into possession and was released, as per the order of learned ACJM Nalagarh. The physical evidence, so collected, by the police, has been sent to SFSL Junga. 6.8 Lastly, it has been pleaded that nothing is to be recovered nor inquired from the applicants. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the applicants. 8. Heard. 9. Considering the stand of the police, according to which, nothing is to be recovered from the applicants, nor anything is to be inquired from them, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the applications would be nothing,   but   pre­trial   punishment   and   punishment   can only be inflicted after the full fledge trial. As such, it can be held that the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter   of   punishment,   as   pre­trial   punishment   is prohibited under the law. 7 2025:HHC:43593 10. Even otherwise, the role, allegedly attributed to the applicants, will be proved, during the trial. 11. Moreover,   the   applicants   are   the   permanent residents   of   District   Solan   and   as   such,   it   cannot   be apprehended   that   in   case,   the   interim   order   is   made absolute, they may not be available for the trial. 12. Consequently, interim order, dated 05.12.2025, in all the cases, is made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 343/2025, dated 02.11.2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, with  Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., subject   to   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. 13. 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 application; 8 2025:HHC:43593 b)   That   the   applicants   shall   not   leave   India, without prior permission of the Court; c)   That   the   applicants   shall   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. 14. 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 applications. 15. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application(s), in case, any of   the   bail   conditions   is   found   violated   by   any   of   the applicants. 16. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case files i.e. CrMPs(M) No. 2856 to 2858 of 2025. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 15th December, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)