2026:HHC:23195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 784 of 2026 Decided on: 19.06.2026 Ramesh Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with M/s Vinod Gupta and Kanika Verma, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No. 46 of 2024, dated 30.08.2024, registered at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103, 238 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Krishan Pal (since deceased) was badly beaten. He subsequently 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23195 succumbed to his injuries. The police arrested the petitioner as one of the assailants. The petitioner is innocent, and there is no evidence connecting him to the commission of the crime. He is the sole earner of the family. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner would abide by 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 had received information on 30.08.2024 that one person was admitted to AIIMS Bilaspur in an injured condition. The police went to the hospital and found that Krishan Pal was admitted to the hospital. The doctor certified that he was not fit to make the statement. The police recorded the statement of Ram Lal, informant, who revealed that Sanjay had informed him on 29.08.2024 at about 8:30- 8:45 p.m. that Krishan Pal was lying in an injured condition at Bihni Johdi. He advised Sanjay to take the injured to AIIMS for treatment. Subsequently, Ramesh Chand revealed that Krishan Pal and Hemraj had a quarrel, and he had turned them out of his Dhaba. The police investigated the matter and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their 3 2026:HHC:23195 version. It was found that petitioner Ramesh Chand and Rampal had beaten Krishan Pal on 29.08.2024. Subsequently, Krishan Pal succumbed to his injury. As per the report of the post-mortem examination, the death was due to head injury consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to the head. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the statements of two witnesses have been recorded out of 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by M/s Vinod Gupta and Kanika Verma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. Even if the prosecution's case is accepted as correct, no case for the commission of murder is made out. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and he would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2026:HHC:23195 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that Ram Pal and petitioner had beaten Krishan Pal, who had sustained injury on the head. Prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 101 of the BNS is made out. The offence is heinous and punishable with the death penalty. The petitioner should not be released on bail, considering the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records 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: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) 5 2026:HHC:23195 “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 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 6 2026:HHC:23195 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 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, 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 7 2026:HHC:23195 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 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 a bail application 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 8 2026:HHC:23195 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by 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 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 in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the 9 2026:HHC:23195 gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The statement of Surjeet, an eyewitness, was recorded by the learned Magistrate, in which he stated that Ram Pal, Krishan Pal and the petitioner had consumed liquor. Petitioner slapped Somnath, who fell. Krishan Pal objected, and this led to a quarrel between the petitioner and Krishan Pal. Ram Pal also intervened. Krishan Pal fell on the stairs and sustained injuries. 12. The status report also mentions that the petitioner, Ramesh Chand, and co-accused Ram Pal had beaten Krishan Pal. Krishan Pal fell and sustained injuries to his head. He died due to the injuries he had sustained. 10 2026:HHC:23195 13. Therefore, the evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie shows that the cause of death was a fall leading to the injury on the head. Prima facie, it is doubtful that pushing a person who falls on the stairs and sustains injury, amounts to murder.2 14. The status report shows that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Solan, and this was not stated to be incorrect in the charge sheet. Thus, the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - 2Jani Gulab Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1970 SCC (Cri) 532 11 2026:HHC:23195 (I) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioner shall not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court, and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 12 2026:HHC:23195 19. The observation made herein before 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 19th June, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.06.19 16:53:10 +0000