2026:HHC:21898 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.799 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Mohit Raj .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. HC Ravi Kant, No.84, Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Mohit Raj, who is behind the bars since 22.02.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.68 of 2015, dated 30.04.2015, under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Respondent/State has filed status and HC Ravi Kant, No.84, Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:21898 -2- 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that complainant-Mr. Ajay Pambu lodged a complaint alleging therein that on 12.04.2015 at 07:30 pm, while he was performing his duty of Security Guard, two unknown persons came on scooter and gave him beatings, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries. Police after having lodged report, got the complainant, named hereinabove, medically examined. Medical officer, after having conducted examination upon complainant, opined the injury No.2 to be grievous in nature, caused with blunt weapon, as a result thereof, case under Section 325 of IPC came to be registered. During investigation, it transpired that person namely Ajay Kumar had given beatings to the complainant. Police, after having arrested both the accused, released them on bail. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, where petitioner herein failed to put in appearance, as a result thereof, vide order dated 31.01.2026, bail petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. On 22.02.2026, Police arrested the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. 4. Since trial is in progress and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that though petitioner had been regularly putting appearance before the learned trial Court, but for some 2026:HHC:21898 -3- unavoidable circumstances, he was unable to put in appearance on one date and thereafter, he was declared as proclaimed offender. He states that petitioner is a local resident of the area and shall make himself available for trial, as and when called by the learned trial Court. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since in past, petitioner has jumped the bail and he is absconding since 13.12.2023, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Court while declaring him proclaimed offender and subsequently, putting him behind the bars. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein, who is accused of offence punishable under Sections 325 and 34 of IPC was absconding w.e.f. 13.12.2023 and ultimately, he came to be apprehended on 22.02.2026, whereafter he is in custody. Though afore conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that he has no respect for law and as such, needs to be dealt with severely, however, having taken note of undertaking given on his behalf that he shall make himself available before the learned trial Court as and when directed, coupled with the fact that he has already suffered approximately for three and a half months for his having failed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court, this Court deems it fit to consider the prayer made on behalf of the 2026:HHC:21898 -4- petitioner for grant of bail. Moreover, this Court finds that it may not be in the interest of justice to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 2026:HHC:21898 -5- 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 11. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of 2026:HHC:21898 -6- accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) he shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required 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 appropriate application; (b) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) he shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 2026:HHC:21898 -7- 16. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 04th June, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)