IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) Nos.1026 & 1027 of 2026 Decided on: 29.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No.1026 of 2026 Saurav Thakur ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent __________________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No.1027 of 2026 Arun Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State, in both the petitions. HC Rakesh Kumar, No.42, IO, PS Mehatpur, District Una, present in person along with record. __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Sequel to orders dated 10.06.2026, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim bail in case FIR No.0026 of 2026, dated 27.05.2026, under Sections 126(2), 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, H.P., respondent/State has filed status report and HC Rakesh Kumar, NO.42, IO, PS Mehatpur, District Una. has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, states that pursuant to orders dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, bail petitioners have joined the investigation. He states that MLC adduced on record clearly reveals that injuries, dangerous to life, were inflicted on the victims/injured by the bail petitioner, namely Saurav Thakur. He states that though bail petitioners have joined the investigation, but till date, they have not got the recovery of revolver used in the offence effected and as such, interim bail granted in favour of bail petitioners, namely Saurav Thakur and Arun Kumar, may not be made absolute. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, fairly states that as far as bail petitioner Arun Kumar is concerned, his presence on the spot at the time of alleged incident is doubtful, because neither his presence could be found in the CCTV cameras, nor any witness has deposed against him. 3 3. Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel representing the complainant, while adopting the stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, states that though victims/injured have been discharged from the hospital, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that attempt was made by bail petitioners namely Saurav Thakur and Arun Kumar to kill the victims/injured namely Nikhil Kumar, Chamel Singh, Vishal Singh and Kulwant Singh. He further states that statement of Nikhil Kumar, if perused, clearly reveals that bail petitioner namely Arun Rana was also present on the spot and he also gave beatings to the victims. He further states that accused had come with premeditated mind to kill the members of complainant party, who allegedly had some altercation with the accused party during the day time. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioners as well as victims/injured, named hereinabove, were out of their respective houses on account of declaration of result of Panchayat elections. Since complainant party received information on WhatsApp that their candidate has won the election, they came out of their respective houses for congratulating the successful candidate, but before they could reach the house of successful candidate and were sitting in the shop of Taya Jaimal Singh, present bail petitioners 4 namely Saurav Thakur and Arun Kumar along with one other person namely Naresh Kumar reached on the spot in two different vehicles. Since some altercation took place inter se complainant party and accused, allegedly accused gave beatings to complainant party, as a result thereof, they suffered multiple injuries. 5. Police after having reached the spot, got the complainant party medically examined at Regional Hospital, Una, where Doctor attending upon them opined the injuries suffered by members of the complainant party to be grievous and dangerous to life. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail petitioners namely Saurav Thakur and Arun Kumar. 6. Since it has come in the investigation that at the time of alleged incident, presence of bail petitioner namely Arun Kumar is doubtful and nothing remains to be recovered from him, there appears to be no impediment in making the order dated 10.06.2026, thereby granting interim bail to aforesaid bail petitioner, absolute. However, it has been vehemently argued by learned Additional Advocate General that order dated 10.06.2026, thereby granting interim bail to bail petitioners may not be made absolute for the reason that till date, accused have not got the recovery of weapon of offence effected. It is also argued that name of other co-accused, who were with them at the time of alleged incident, are not being 5 disclosed, as a result thereof, investigating agency is finding it difficult to conclude the investigation. 7. At this stage, this Court finds it necessary to go through the contents of the FIR, wherein admittedly there is no mention of use of revolver, rather complainant at first instance alleged that accused gave them beatings with sticks and swords. Story of use of revolver came to be introduced subsequently at the time of investigation, wherein some of the witnesses stated that they heard noise of cocking the revolver, but CCTV footage placed on record nowhere reveals that at the time of alleged incident, any of the accused used revolver, rather they can be seen giving beatings to the members of the complainant party with sticks and swords. Since one of the accused allegedly shouted ‘bring out the pistol’, investigating agency has concluded that accused, named in the FIR, beside using sword and sticks, also attempted to some firearm. 8. Since FIR, which is lodged at first instance, is completely silent with regard to use of revolver, coupled with the fact that no revolver can be seen in the CCTV footage, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners that accused were neither in possession of the revolver, nor the same was used. No doubt, in the alleged incident, members of the complainant party received grievous injuries on account of their being given beatings by the accused, but it is not in dispute 6 that members of the complainant party namely Nikhil Kumar, Chamel Singh, Vishal Singh and Kulwant Singh have already recovered from their injuries and stand discharged from hospital. Besides above, this Court finds that alleged incident happened at the spur of moment, that too between two groups and as such, it would be too premature to conclude the knowledge and intention, if any, of the accused to kill the persons namely Nikhil Kumar, Chamel Singh, Vishal Singh and Kulwant Singh. Whether there was any provocation or alleged incident happened at the spur of moment are the questions of facts to be decided by the learned trial Court in the totality of evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency and as such, there appears to be no justification to send the bail petitioners behind bars during pendency of trial, conclusion whereof may take considerable time. 9. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved, in accordance with law. 10. 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 freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed 7 merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the 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 8 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 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 11. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence 9 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 10 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: 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 grant of bail. 14. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, orders dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, are made absolute, with following conditions:- 8.a they shall make themselves 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; 8.b they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; 8.c they shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts 11 of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and 8.d they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the Investigating Agency shall be free to move to this Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. 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 these applications alone. 17. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of 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. June 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge