1 2025:HHC:43250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.2687 of 2025 Reserved on: 02.12.2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025 Darshan Singh ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 126/2025 dated 18.04.2025, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 & 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He is a business person and has deep roots in society. He has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2025. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 2025:HHC:43250 allegations of murder attributed to him are wholly incorrect. The petitioner did not murder any person; rather, he had tried to save the deceased from the co-accused. The role attributed to the petitioner, even if accepted at face value, does not satisfy the conditions laid down under Sections 61(2) and 103 of BNS. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The investigation is complete, and the challan has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received a telephonic information on 17.04.2025 that a person had committed suicide at Dattowal. The police went to the spot and found that the dead body had been taken to Kiratpur Sahib for cremation. The police went to Kiratpur Sahib and seized the dead body. Multiple injuries were found on the dead body. The police suspected foul play in the death. The wife of the deceased revealed during the enquiry that her husband had consumed liquor on 16.04.2025 at 4:00 p.m. and became violent. She and her children went away from the house. They returned at 10:00 p.m. and found that the deceased 3 2025:HHC:43250 was sleeping on the floor. She did not disturb him. When he did not wake in the morning, she informed Sasnjay Kumar. He filed an application on 18.04.2025 stating that his brother Satbeer (since deceased), his wife Hansi, and the children were residing at Dattowal. Hansi had an illicit relationship with the petitioner, Darshan Singh. Satbeer objected to the relationship. Darshan Singh, Hansi, Parvesh, and some other persons had murdered Satbeer. Sanjay tried to inform the police, but Hansi Devi and Darshan objected to it. They attempted to cremate the dead body, but Sanjay informed the police. The postmortem report revealed that the death was caused by the cumulative effect of asphyxia sewndary to ligature strangulation of the neck and sustained electrocution injuries. The police arrested Hansi Devi, who led the police to the room where the murder was committed. The police seized the pillow covers and the bed sheet. She also produced the clothes worn by Satbeer and her dupatta, which was used to strangulate the deceased. The call detail record revealed that Hansi Devi and Darshan Singh were talking to each other. The CCTV footage showed that a Maruti Desire had stopped near the building at 7:02 p.m. Two people and a woman got out of the car and went inside the building. One person returned after some time and again went back to the 4 2025:HHC:43250 building. The person took away the vehicle after some time. Abhishek and Ishant Sharma identified the vehicle in the CCTV footage as the one owned by the petitioner, Darshan Singh. Ishant Sharma also identified Hansi Devi. He identified Darshan Singh as the person who had gotten out of the car. The police interrogated Hansi Devi. The police seized the car and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner identified the place where Hansi Devi and Parvesh were dropped. 314.7 mg/dl of alcohol was found in the viscera. The co-accused Parvesh Kumar surrendered on 24.06.2025. The police arrested him. He made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of an electricity wire, which was used to electrocute the deceased. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 06.04.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police recorded the statement of Hansi Devi in which she had exonerated the petitioner of murdering Satbeer. 5 2025:HHC:43250 The allegations against the petitioner, even if accepted to be correct, show the destruction of the evidence, which is a bailable offence. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the murder. The circumstantial evidence points towards his guilt at this stage. He had brought the co-accused in his vehicle. All of them went inside the building. The petitioner came out of the building after some time and went away in the car. Thus, he, Hansi Devi, and Parvesh were last seen together with the deceased. He has not provided any explanation regarding his presence in the building at the time of the murder. Therefore, a prima facie inference of his involvement can be drawn. The petitioner is not entitled to bail because of the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6 2025:HHC:43250 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: “57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means, and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State, and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence,” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic) itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will 7 2025:HHC:43250 be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order 8 2025:HHC:43250 granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC 9 2025:HHC:43250 OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170)), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time, while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly when the accusations may not be false, frivolous, or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the statement of Hansi Devi recorded during the interrogation by the police to submit that she had exonerated the petitioner by saying that he had tried to save Satbeer, and his involvement in the commission of the crime is not made out. This submission will not help the petitioner. The statement made by an accused during the custody is inadmissible in 10 2025:HHC:43250 evidence. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by a co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568: - 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 11. Therefore, the statement made by Hansi Devi cannot be used as a legally admissible piece of evidence, and it is impermissible to look into it to determine the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. 12. The status report shows that Hansi Devi and Parvesh had come out of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner. All 11 2025:HHC:43250 three people went inside the building where Satbeer resided. The co-accused, Hansi Devi, made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a dupatta and pillow covers, which were used for strangulation. 13. Accused Parvesh made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of an electric wire, which was used for electrocuting Satbeer. The petitioner has not provided any explanation regarding his presence in the building where the deceased and two of the co-accused were also present. Therefore, prima facie, an inference of the petitioner being involved in the commission of the crime can be drawn. 14. The offence of murder is punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244: “6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment, and serve a sentence in the 12 2025:HHC:43250 event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated, when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows: [Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51] “I do not think that an accused is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important: the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death.” 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 13 2025:HHC:43250 15. Considering the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 16. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th December, 2025. (Nikita)