IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.780 of 2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Kumar Pal ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta & Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. SI Desh Raj, Police Station Baddi, District Solan, HP, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner namely Kumar Pal, who is behind bars since 28.02.2025, 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.276 of 2024, dated 06.11.2024, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 103, 115(2), 238 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Pursuant to directions passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report and SI Desh Raj has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 05.12.2024, police received telephonic information from CHC Baddi, District Solan, that on account of quarrel inter se two groups, two persons had been brought for treatment, Investigating Officer, after having reached CHC Baddi, found that persons namely Shamshul, S/o Hamid, Shavdun S/o Nazar Hussain, Arwaz S/o Nazar Hussain and Ramjani S/o Nazar Hussain, residents of Khanpur, Sarai @ Aalampur, PO Bharthal, Tehsil & District Sambhal Uttar Pradesh were brought for treatment. Police, after getting the medical examination of the aforesaid persons, obtained MLCs and recorded the statement of complainant namely Shamshul S/o Hamid, who while stating that now a days he is residing in a room near Baddi hospital Baddi, along with his family, alleged that on 05.11.2024 at about 08:30 p.m., while he was present on the roof of his house, persons namely Kumar Pal i.e. petitioner herein, Om Parkash, Vijender, Jitender, Bunty, Bhura, Commando and Shyam gave him beatings. He alleged that when other family members intervened to rescue him, persons named hereinabove also gave them beatings. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, 2 came to be lodged against the persons namely Kumar Pal i.e. petitioner herein, Om Parkash, Vijender, Jitender, Bunty, Bhura, Commando and Shyam. During investigation, police received information from Government Medical College, Sector-32, Chandigarh, that person namely Shamshul had been brought to the hospital for treatment and as such, on 08.11.2024, Investigating Officer visited the hospital for recording the statement of the complainant, but since Medical Officer attending upon afore person did not declare him to be fit to make a statement, police recorded the statements of other witnesses and completed necessary formalities. On 25.11.2024, Police received information from Government Medical College Sector-32, Chandigarh that person namely Shamshul has expired, as a result thereof, Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was also incorporated in the FIR and petitioner herein along with other persons was taken into custody. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail- petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. N.S.Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, states that petitioner herein has been wrongly booked under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita because there is no 3 evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that deceased Shamhsul died on account of injury, if any, inflicted by the petitioner. Mr. Chandel contends that postmortem report adduced on record clearly reveals that deceased Shamshul died on account of his having developed septicemia in a wound allegedly suffered by him in his abdomen, but material adduced on record by the prosecution itself suggests that afore wound, which was later on discovered by the hospital authorities, at Chandigarh, was not on account of injuries, if any, inflicted on the person of Shamshul by the petitioner as well as other co- accused on the date of alleged incident. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel specifically referred to the opinion rendered on record by the doctor on the first occasion when Shamshul along with other injured was taken to CHC Baddi for treatment. He states that careful perusal of aforesaid MLC clearly reveals that no injury could be seen by the doctor attending upon the petitioner on the abdomen of the petitioner. He states that since there is no mention, if any, of fourth injury allegedly suffered by the deceased on his abdomen in the initial medical records, coupled with the fact that death of deceased has been opined to be on account of septicemia developed in the fourth injury, case registered against the petitioner under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not 4 sustainable and petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. While making this Court peruse status report, Mr. Chandel, further states that as per own case of the prosecution, there was a fight inter se two groups and beatings were given by both the parties to each other. He states that petitioner, who had gone on the spot, after having witnessed some altercation inter se his brother- in-law Om Parkash and Shamshul, was also given beatings and he was also thrown from the first floor of the roof, as a result thereof, he suffered serious injuries, on account of which, he remained admitted in hospital for more than 20 days. He states that it is own case of the prosecution that cross FIR was filed at the behest of the petitioner herein against the relatives of the deceased Shamshul under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. However, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1031 of 2025, enlarged one of the accused namely Salman on bail. He states that since there was no premeditation of mind, if any, inter se the complainant and the other accused named in the FIR, coupled with the fact that entire incident happened at the spur of the movement, case under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita registered against the petitioner is otherwise not maintainable. To substantiate his aforesaid contention, he specifically referred to Section 101 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which which provides that Culpable 5 homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of moment, upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Lastly, Mr. Chandel states that petitioner is behind bars for almost one and a half years, but till date prosecution has been able to examine only two witnesses, meaning thereby, considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, as such, petitioner is otherwise required to be enlarged on bail on account of delay in trial. 5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Panwar, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner along with other co-accused had come on the spot with a premeditated intention to kill the deceased, Shamshul. He states that though at first instance, Medical Officer attending upon Shamshul was unable to discover fourth injury suffered by the deceased on his abdomen, but once such injury was subsequently detected by the doctor at Chandigarh and subsequently death was opined to be caused on account of 6 septicemia developed in afore wound, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Investigating Agency, while registering case against the petitioner under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He states that petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and in case, his prayer for grant of bail is accepted, it may send wrong message to the society. He further states that trial has already commenced and two prosecution witnesses stand examined and as such, it cannot be said that there is a delay in conclusion of trial. He states that since statements of material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail-petitioner on bail, who in that event, may not only flee from justice, but may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, deceased Shamshul, who at relevant time was present on roof of his house, was given beatings by persons namely Kumar Pal i.e. petitioner herein, along with other co-accused namely Om Parkash, Vijender, Jitender, Bunty, Bhura, Commando and Shyam. During investigation, the police found that on 05.11.2024, at about 8:30 p.m., while co-accused Shyam was standing outside his quarter, the deceased, 7 Shamshul, was present inside his own quarter. Co-accused Shyam asked Shamshul that why he had been hurling abuses behind his back. Deceased Shamshul got infuriated with aforesaid question of co-accused Shyam and started hurling abuses at him. In the afore background, scuffle took place inter se Shyam and Shamshul, but in the meantime, co-accused Om Parkash, who is neighbour of Kumar Pal, also came on the spot along with Jitender. While Shamshul was allegedly given beatings, his relatives namely Arbaj, Sabudeen & Ramjani also came on the spot and started giving beatings to Om Parkash and present bail-petitioner. It has also come in the investigation that bail-petitioner was thrown from the roof of his house, as a result thereof, he suffered serious injuries and remained admitted in hospital for more than two weeks. 7. Petitioner herein also lodged FIR, levelling therein serious allegations of beatings against Ramjani and Samsdeen. Though case under Section 109 of BNS was registered against aforesaid persons, but they stand enlarged on bail. As per prosecution case, accused namely Shyam gave beatings to the deceased Shamshul, whereas other co-accused Om Parkash and present bail-petitioner Kumar Pal were also carrying stick and iron pipe. At CHC Baddi, medical of the deceased Shamshul was 8 conducted, wherein doctor attending upon him found three injuries which reads as under:- “a. Laceration injury on left side lumber region size. b. Laceration injury on left side frontal region size. c. Laceration injury on right side scapular region size. 8. It also emerges from the record that deceased Shamshul was discharged on the same day, whereafter he went to his house. However, after one day, he developed same problem, as a result thereof, he was taken to Government Medical College, Sector-32, Chandigarh, wherein he remained admitted for some time, but ultimately expired. Postmortem conducted upon the body of the deceased reveals that he died on account of septicemia due to perforation peritonitis consequent upon sigmoid colon perforation in a case of blunt Trauma abdomen, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. At this stage, it is important to take note of opinion rendered by Forensic Medicine GMCH-32, Chandigarh. Aforesaid opinion was rendered pursuant to clarification sought by the IO, “whether deceased died due to injuries mentioned in MLR/postmortem report, operation notes and complete treatment record”. A clarification was called by the department of surgery vide No GMC dated 10.01.2025. In reply, it was mentioned that peritoneum was breached from inside corresponding to the 9 external stab wound. So it is highly likely that the injury was caused by the penetrating trauma (stab) over the abdomen. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the fact that deceased was admitted to Civil Hospital, Baddi on 05.11.2024 with alleged history of assault and he was found to have suffered three injuries as detailed hereinabove. However, on 06.11.2024, he was admitted at GMCH, Sector-32 Chandigarh on account of chest pain and shortness of breath. While completing general case sheet on 07.11.2024, surgery resident noted a 3cmX1cm wound on left side of abdomen, which was sutured from outside. Question which needs to be looked at this stage is that why aforesaid 4th injury was not discovered/seen by the Medical Officer at Baddi? 9. It is also not the case of the prosecution that while deceased was admitted at CHC Baddi, he had undergone any kind of surgery. Since deceased was discharged on the same day i.e. 05.11.2024 and thereafter, he remained in house for one day, coupled with the fact that no material has been collected on record by the prosecution to prove that during aforesaid period, deceased had developed some medical emergency on account of which he was operated at CHC Baddi, story of prosecution becomes doubtful. Similarly, no material has been led on record by the prosecution to prove that no subsequent quarrel, if any, 10 inter se deceased and some other person after his discharge from the Civil Hospital Baddi took place. No doubt, in the alleged incident, aforesaid deceased Shamshul suffered injuries, which were opined to be grievous in nature, but perusal of postmortem report, as has been taken note hereinabove, clearly reveals that deceased Shamshul died on account of septicemia due to perforation peritonitis consequent upon sigmoid colon perforation in a case of blunt Trauma abdomen. Since at present there is nothing on record to connect the accused named in the FIR with the injury allegedly suffered by the deceased i.e. abdomen, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior Counsel that it may be premature to conclude complicity of the petitioner, if any, in the case at hand under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Similarly, this Court finds that alleged incident took place inter se two groups at the spur of the moment and there is no material to suggest that there was premeditated intention and knowledge. Altercation started inter se Shyam and deceased Shamshul and allegedly co-accused Shyam started giving beatings to deceased Shamshul, but in the meantime relatives of Shamshul also arrived at the spot and started giving beatings to the Shyam. Present bail-petitioner and co-accused Om Parkash also reached on the spot and thereafter, there was free fight inter se parties. In the alleged incident, petitioner Shamshul and bail- 11 petitioner suffered serious injuries. In the FIR, which is the subject matter of the present case, petitioner is also named as accused, whereas in the FIR lodged at the behest of the petitioner herein, deceased Shamshul along with other relatives was arraigned as an accused under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 10. No doubt, unfortunately one person has lost his life in the alleged incident, but once injury in abdomen i.e. fourth injury, which became cause of death of the deceased, does not appear to have been caused to the deceased in the alleged incident of beatings happened on 05.11.2024, mere gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, may not dissuade, this Court for considering the prayer made for grant of bail. 11. 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 12 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 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 13 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 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 12. 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. 13. 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 14 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 15 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. e. He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 18, 2026 (sunil 16