IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.708 of 2026 Decided on: 19.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Lucky Sharma ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner Lucky Sharma, who is behind bars since 19.06.2025, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.121 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 181(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. Pursuant to direction passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 14.06.2025 at about 12:55 p.m., police received information from Civil Hospital, Nurpur that one person namely Ms. Ranjana Kumari, W/o Lucky Sharma i.e. bail-petitioner had 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? been brought to the hospital for treatment. After having reached the hospital, police recorded the statement of the complainant namely Sh. Mohan Lal i.e. brother-in-law of the victim Ranjana Kumari and elder brother of the bail-petitioner, under Section 173 of BNSS, wherein he alleged that he and the bail petitioner are two brothers and the bail petitioner is his younger brother. He alleged that on 14.06.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was present in his house along with his wife, his nephew Priyansh informed him that his father i.e. petitioner herein had assaulted his mother i.e. Ranjana with drat. He alleged that he, immediately thereafter, reached on the spot and found that blood was oozing from the body of Ranjana while his brother i.e. petitioner herein was roaming here and there. On the basis of statement made by the complainant under Section 173 BNSS, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and statements of all the material prosecution witnesses stand recorded, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Arush Matlotia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse, certified copies of the statements made by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 on oath before Court below states that all the material prosecution witnesses 2 have turned hostile and as such, bail-petitioner, who has been languishing in jail for more than one year, deserves to be enlarged on bail. He states that since the statements of the material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and still 16 witnesses remain to be examined, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail-petitioner behind bars, who is otherwise innocent. He states that considerable time is likely to the consumed in conclusion of trial because out of 21 prosecution witnesses only six have been examined till date. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that innocence of the petitioner cannot be concluded on the basis of statement made by six witnesses, rather same shall be determined by the court below in totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution. He states that statements of 16 witnesses remain to be examined. He states that though complainant may have turned hostile, but there is overwhelming evidence available in the shape of medical as well as scientific evidence suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, petitioner attempted to kill his wife by giving blow of drat. He states that since trial has already commenced and court below has fixed the matter for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 22/23.07.2026, prayer 3 made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial cannot be accepted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein came to be made an accused in the FIR on the basis of statement made by his elder brother Mr. Mohan Lal, who alleged on 14.06.2025 at 11:00 a.m., his nephew informed him that his father i.e. petitioner herein had assaulted his mother with drat, meaning thereby, aforesaid complainant had no occasion to see the incident with his eyes, rather factum of alleged incident came to his knowledge on the basis of information shared with him by his nephew Priyansh, who at relevant time was 12 years old. Interestingly, in the case at hand, victim Ranjana, who allegedly suffered injuries in the incident, turned hostile. She categorically stated that she does not know under what circumstances her brother-in-law Mohan Lal had lodged complaint because neither her husband had given her beatings nor she had registered any case/complaint against him. Similarly, PW-3 Sh. Mohan Lal, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed, also turned hostile. He simply stated that wife of his brother Lucky had suffered injury, but he does not how and under what circumstances Ranjana suffered injuries. PW-4 Pawan Kumar, who was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat at relevant time, 4 denied the case of the prosecution. PW-5 Smt. Tara Devi, W/o Mohan Lal, also turned hostile. She stated that bail-petitioner is his brother-in-law and victim did not make any statement to the police while she was admitted to RPGMC, Tanda. If the cross- examination conducted upon afore witnesses is perused in its entirety, it can be safely concluded that prosecution was unable to extract anything contrary to what these witnesses stated in their examination-in-chief. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that statements of 16 prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded, but he was unable to dispute that statements of material prosecution witnesses including complainant and victim stand recorded, whereby they have not supported the case of prosecution. Once victim herself denied factum of her having been attacked by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that all the spot witnesses/eye witnesses have turned hostile, there is every likelihood that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner would fail. In view of the above, this Court sees no reason to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than one year. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time 5 his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an 6 appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when  required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status 7 of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 9. 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. 10. 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 8 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. 11. 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 accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail-petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the bail-petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 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; 9 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. e. He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 19, 2026 (sunil) 10