1 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2338 of 2025 Reserved on:- 05.12.2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Karamjeet Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for the complainant. Virender Singh, Judge By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant- Karamjeet Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.211 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect him, with the crime in question. 5. Applicant has pleaded that he belongs to a respectable family and having deep roots in the society. 6. According to the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered, from his possession. All these facts have been pleaded to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the Police. 7. On the basis of above facts, the applicant, through his counsel, has 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 pendency of the trial. 8. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar bail application, before this 3 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1571 of 2025. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2025. 9. As per the stand of the applicant, he is in judicial custody and his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the Police. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 11. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 25.06.2025, HC Ajay Kumar, No.20, Police Station Nalagarh, along with the another police official was on patrolling duty in the government vehicle and when, he, reached at Rajpura- Khera road, near the house of Naresh Kumar, then, he, noticed number of persons gathered there. On inquiry, he, was apprised that a quarrel had taken place and one person has been taken to Aakash Hospital for treatment, upon which, HC Ajay Kumar, No.20, along with police official had reached Aakash Hospital, on Nalagarh-Baddi road, where, injured was found lying in the vehicle, outside the hospital and his family members were shifting him, in the Ambulance. On inquiry, the name of the injured was found to be Praveen Kumar son of Ram Gopal. Thereafter, 4 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) the Medical Officer of Aakash Hospital was requested to provide MLC of injured-Praveen Kumar, upon which, he has apprised the IO, that no MLC has been conducted, nor, any treatment has been given to him. The family members of the injured took him to another hospital for treatment. 11.1. It is the further case of the police that on the same day, i.e. on 25.06.2025, from PGI Chandigarh, a telephonic information was received, regarding the fact that injured Praveen Kumar, as per CR No.3109002, has been brought for treatment to PGI, Chandigarh, upon which, HC Ajay Kumar, under the leadership of ASI, Jitender Sharma and other police officials reached PGI, Chandigarh, where, in the Trauma Centre, said injured-Praveen Kumar was found admitted. Thereafter, the request for obtaining his MLC was made, upon which, the Doctor had declared him, unfit to make statement. 11.2. However, his brother Gaurav Dhiman moved a complaint before the police, disclosing therein, that he, is resident of village Dhang Nichli, Post Office, Plasi Kalan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. They are two brothers and name of his brother is Praveen Kumar (injured). Both 5 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) of them are doing the business of manufacturing furniture, for that purpose, they used to hire labour from Peersthan. 11.3. According to him, on 25.06.2025, at about 8:00 AM, his brother had left the house for hiring the labour. Then, between 8:30 to 9:00 AM, one unknown person from mobile phone No.98169-31641, informed him that his brother has been injured by his neighbours Amarjeet and Karamjeet. 11.4. According to him, they are having old animosity with them. After injuring Praveen Kumar, he was thrown on Rajpura-Khera road. On this information, complainant along with his family members reached at the spot, where, he found that his brother was lying unconscious. He was having injuries over his arms, legs, mouth, on the head and other parts of the body. Injuries were also there, on the hands of Praveen Kumar. Considering the serious condition of his brother, complainant took him to Aakash Hospital, but keeping in view his serious condition, no treatment was given there and thereafter, he was brought to PGI, Chandigarh. His brother was stated to be unconscious and his condition was serious. 6 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) 11.5. Lastly, he has got recorded that due to land dispute, Amarjeet and Karamjeet had attacked his brother with the intention to kill him, as such, he has requested that action be taken against them, upon which, the police registered the case under Sections 109, 115(2) & 3(5) of BNS. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by ASI Jitender Sharma. During investigation, efforts were made to nab Karamjeet and Amarjeet, but they were not found. However, Amarjeet son of Ram Asra, who has also been named, as accused, appeared before the police, on 26.06.2025, who was apprised about the grounds of arrest and was arrested at 10:30 AM. Thereafter, he was medico legally examined and was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, from where, he was remanded to police custody till 28.06.2025. 11.6. During investigation, said Amarjeet has denied his involvement in the incident and also feigned his ignorance, regarding the involvement of his brother Karamjeet (applicant). Thereafter, ASI Jitender Sharma, inquired from eye-witnesses Sodi Ram and Praveen Kumar. Both of them had disclosed that one person, who had worn yellow coloured T-shirt was having Daraat (big sickle) in his 7 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) hand and he had beaten the injured-Praveen Kumar, with Daraat and no other person was involved in the incident. They have further revealed that after attacking injured- Praveen Kumar, said person had fled away on motorcycle towards Khera. Later on, both the said eye-witnesses came to know about the assailant, as Karamjeet son of Ram Asra (applicant). The statement of those eye-witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. 11.7. During investigation, near by CCTV footages were checked and as per the CCTV footage of the camera, installed at Rajpura Chowk, one person was found to be chasing injured-Praveen Kumar, who had worn yellow coloured T-shirt. Thereafter, mobile phone location, as well as, CDRs of the mobile phone of Amarjeet Singh, bearing Mobile No.97367-49327, were obtained. The tower location of the mobile phone of Amarjeet was found to be in the area of Peersthan Nalagarh. The statements of the eye-witnesses were got recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, by producing them, in the Court. In their statements before the Court, they have stated about the involvement of only one person and they have also got recorded about the non involvement 8 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) of Amarjeet in their statements. Amarjeet was released, the provisions of under Section 189 of BNSS. 11.8. It is the further case of the police that there is no reference with regard to the accused, in the statements of the eye-witnesses. As such, according to the police, Test Identification Parade is required to be conducted, whereas, the injured is still admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, but he has again been declared, not fit for statement. The family members of the injured disclosed to the police that there are total 26 injuries, on the person of injured-Praveen Kumar, for which, 3 surgeries have already been conducted and 2 are yet to be conducted. 11.9. Lastly, it has been stated that the applicant Karamjeet Singh has not joined the investigation. He is required to be investigated, in the case and the weapon of offence, as well as, motorcycle used in the crime is still to be recovered. 11.10. On 11.07.2025, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that the request for treatment summary of the injured and the opinion of the doctor has been made, upon which, his medical record has been received, according to which, 15 injuries were found to be 9 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) inflicted on the person of injured-Praveen Kumar. However, the final opinion has not been given. 11.11. It is the further case of the police that CDRs of applicant Karamjeet Singh, were perused and it was found that immediately, after the incident, he has made telephonic call to mobile phone No.70180-50505. The said number is found to be registered in the name of Charanpreet Singh son of Sampuran Singh. Thereafter, he has made telephonic call, on mobile phone No.78760- 08843, which was found to be issued in the name of Vivek Kumar son of Bhogliya Ram. Both were associated in the investigation and their statements were recorded. 11.12. Charanpreet Singh got recorded in his statement that on 25.06.2025 at about 9:00 AM, Karamjeet Singh (applicant) came to him, on his bike at Bhood, he was wearing yellow coloured T-shirt and requested him to provide the shelter, as, he has killed his neighbour. As per CDRs, the location of Karamjeet Singh (applicant) from 9:21 AM to 9:24 AM was found to be at Bhood. 11.13. Vivek Kumar, in his statement, got recorded that Karamjeet Singh (applicant) called him and inquired about the fact, upon which, he has disclosed that he had killed 10 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) his neighbour at Rajpura. The location of Karamjeet Singh (applicant) at 2:50 PM, was found to be at Makhnu Majra. 11.14. On inquiry, it was found that his friend Husan Chand is residing in Makhnu Majra. He was also associated in the investigation, who has got recorded that on 25.06.2025, Karamjeet Singh (applicant) came to him. He was wearing yellow coloured T-shirt, on that day and having a rucksack on his back. The said witness has also disclosed that the Karamjeet (applicant) disclosed to him, that he had a quarrel with his neighbour and requested him to provide shelter, for which, he has refused and thereafter, said Husan Chand had gone to attend his duty. 11.15. As per CCTV footage, police has concluded that Karamjeet Singh (applicant) has committed the said offence. Karamjeet Singh (applicant) has joined the investigation, however, he has denied his involvement in the crime, whereas, according to the police, on the basis of the statements of witnesses, CCTV footage and the location of his mobile phone, it has been found that the crime has been committed by him. The weapon of offence, motorcycle and bag is yet to be recovered from him. 11 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) 11.16. During investigation, the police has also recorded statement of Praveen Kumar (injured), who has specifically named the applicant, as the assailant, who had inflicted injuries. 11.17. It is the further case of the police that since eye- witnesses recognize the accused, by face only, and can identify him, by seeing him only, as such, Test Identification Parade, is necessary to be conducted. 11.18. Apart from the present case, another case bearing FIR No.100 of 2024, dated 21.04.2025, under Sections 354, 506 & 34 of IPC, has been found to be registered against the applicant, with Police Station, Nalagarh. 11.19. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has placed on record photocopy of the compromise, dated 03.05.2012, copy of FIR No.58 of 2013, registered under Sections 325, 323 & 34 of IPC, which was lodged at the instance of Gaurav Dhiman (complainant) and his brother Praveen Kumar (injured) against accused Amarjeet and his brother Karamjeet (applicant). The photocopy of the notice issued under Section 111 Cr.PC., by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nalagarh, photocopy of FIR 12 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) No.57, dated 28.03.2013, registered at the instance of applicant Karamjeet Singh, photocopy of FIR No.4 of 2014, dated 07.01.2014, photocopy of complaint moved by Praveen Kaur daughter of Ram Asra, sister of applicant Karamjeet, which was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Baddi, levelling allegations against injured, as well as, his brother, photocopy of the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in a case, arising out of FIR No.4 of 2014, dated 07.01.2014, under Sections 354(D) & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, by virtue of which, Praveen Kumar (injured), Gaurav Dhiman (complainant) along with Amandeep Singh and Kamal Kishore were convicted for the offences under Sections 354(D) & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC., have also been placed on record by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. 11.20. Heavily relying upon these documents, Mr. N.S Chandel, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, has argued that the applicant has been roped-in, in this case, due to the previous animosity. 13 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) 11.21. Apart from this, it has also been highlighted that the applicant is permanent resident of District Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for the trial. 11.22. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has argued that both the alleged eye-witnesses are from the same village, as such, their act of not naming the applicant, as accused, in their alleged statements/revelation to the police is a fact, which totally destroys the case of the prosecution. 12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. As per the status report, one case i.e. FIR No.100 of 2024, dated 21.04.2024, under Sections 354, 506, 34 IPC has been found to have been registered against the applicant, with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., which is stated to be pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Mere registration of another case cannot be made a basis to decline the relief, as sought in the bail application, as the decision of the said case cannot be anticipated. 14 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) 14. The investigation, in the present case, is complete and the police has filed the challan, before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. Meaning thereby, the presence of the applicant is no more required by the police. 15. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for trial. 16. Even otherwise, at the time of deciding the question of bail, detailed discussion of the evidence of the prosecution should be avoided, as the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, the case of the applicant. 17. Moreover, the role attributed to the applicant, in the commission of alleged offence, will be proved during trial. Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law, as dismissal of the application, would be nothing, but sentencing him to judicial custody/police custody. 18. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police in the status report, are concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the 15 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the present bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 20. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.211 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2) & 3(5) of BNS, with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 21. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) 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 appropriate application; b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) 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 16 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 22. 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. 23. It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 24. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through e- mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 25. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, 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 17 ( 2025:HHC:42528 ) month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. (Virender Singh) Judge December 09, 2025 (subhash) KALPANA Digitally signed by KALPANA Date: 2025.12.09 17:03:27 +0000