2026:HHC:26009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 740 of 2026 Reserved on: 23.6.2026 Decided on: 2.7.2026 Mahesh Kaushal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 358 of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103, 352, 45, 61(2), and 126(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26009 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Akash, Virender Pal alias Lali, Ashu Puri, Ashu and a few others celebrated Ashu’s birthday. Purjinder alias Pintu, Parminder, Jasvinder, Harsh, and Maninder also had a party in the hotel. All of them came out of the hotel. Ashu cut the cake in the parking lot of the Hotel, and the informant party played music in their vehicle and danced. Gurjeet Maan, Purjinder, Parminder, Harsh, Jaswinder, Maninder and 2-3 persons came near their vehicle and started hurling abuses at the informant party. Ashu Puri went towards them. Gurjeet Maan, etc., started beating him. The informant party tried to rescue Ashu Puri, which led to a scuffle. Both parties separated and boarded their vehicle. Ashu Puri and petitioner Mahesh Kaushal were discussing something amongst themselves. The informant asked Ashu Puri to board the vehicle. Gurjeet Maan, Purjinder and Parminder were standing near their vehicle. They handed over a pistol to Parminder, and all of them ran towards Ashu Puri. Gurjeet Maan and Purjinder asked Parminder to shoot Ashu on his head. Parminder shot Ashu, who fell. Parminder kept on firing even after Ashu had fallen. Gurjeet Maan and Purjinder came near him and helped him in committing the crime. The 3 2026:HHC:26009 police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The FIR was lodged by distorting the fact to create a defence in favour of the informant's party. The FIR is silent regarding the injuries caused to Gurjeet Maan, etc. An FIR No. 359 of 2025 was also registered regarding the same incident. The petitioner was asked to join the investigation, and he joined the investigation. He was arrested on 5.12.2025. The FIR does not show that the petitioner, Mahesh Puri, had assisted in the commission of the crime. The petitioner had not indulged in any overt act, like the co-accused Gurjeet Maan and Purjinder. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was involved by invoking Section 45 and Section 61(2) of BNS, but there is no evidence of conspiracy or abetment. The mere gravity of the offence is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was merely talking to Ashu Puri, which is not a crime. The injuries sustained by Parminder and Purjinder have not been explained in the FIR. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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. 4 2026:HHC:26009 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Akash, Virender Pal Singh alias Lali Bhai, Ashu Puri (since deceased) and other persons had gone to a Hotel at Lalsinghi on 19.11.2025 at about 8.15 p.m. to celebrate the birthday of Ashu. Gurjeet Man, Gurjinder alias Pindu, Parminder, Jaswinder, Harsh, Maninder, etc., also held a party in the hotel. All the people came out of the hotel into the parking after the party. Ashu cut the cake. The informant party played the music in their vehicle and danced. Gurjeet Maan, Gurjinder, Parminder, Harsh, Jaswinder, Maninder and 2-3 other persons also came to the parking. Gurjeet, Gurjinder and Parminder abused the informant party. Ashu Puri went towards them. Gurjeet Maan, Gurjinder, Parminder, Maninder, Harsh and Jaswinder abused Ashu Puri and gave him beatings. The other persons rescued Ashu Puri, and all of them sat in the vehicle. However, Ashu Puri and Mahesh Kaushal were talking to each other. The informant asked Ashu Puri to board the vehicle, but Mahesh Kaushal engaged him in conversation. Gurjeet Man, Purjinder and Parminder took out one pistol from their vehicle and handed it over to Parminder. Lali Bhai ran away from the spot after seeing the pistol. Gurjeet Maan and Purjinder told Parminder to shoot 5 2026:HHC:26009 Ashu in the head. Parminder shot Ashu Puri in the head. Ashu fell, but Parminder continued shooting him. One person pushed Parminder, Gurjeet and Purjinder. The injured person was taken to the hospital, and the doctor declared Ashu Puri to be dead. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. Various articles were seized from the spot. It was found during the investigation that Gurjeet Singh, Parminder Singh, Gurjinder Singh, Mahesh Kaushal, Harshdeep and others had gone to the hotel to celebrate the birthday of Purjinder Singh on 19.11.2025. Ashu Puri and his friends, Akash, Sarul Kapila, Chand Thakur, Abhishek, Niteesh, Deepanshu, etc., were also celebrating the birthday of Ashu Kanav. Both parties had consumed liquor. Ashu Puri and other persons were dancing after playing music in their vehicle. Gurjeet, Purjinder, Parminder, Mahesh Kaushal, Harshdeep, etc. came out of the hotel. They shouted at Ashu Puri and other persons. Gurjeet Maan retorted and abused. Abhishek, Nitish and Deepanshu went towards Gurjeet and asked him why he had abused them. Gurjeet and Deepanshu had a scuffle. Akash took out a sword from the vehicle of Ashutosh and started hitting Parminder and Purjinder with the sword. Jaswinder sustained multiple injuries on his arms and other parts of his body. Gurjeet, 6 2026:HHC:26009 Purjinder and Parminder talked to each other near their vehicle. Mahesh Kaushal and Harshdeep went towards Ashu Puri and started talking to him, and in this manner, they separated Ashu Puri from his friends. Parminder and Purjinder took out one pistol from their vehicle. Parminder, Purjinder and Gurjeet went towards Ashu Puri. Harshdeep and Mahesh Kaushal separated Ashu Puri from his friends and facilitated the attack on him. Parminder Singh shot at Ashu Puri, and Ashu Puri fell. Parminder continued to shoot him. Purjinder and Gurjeet instigated him to kill Ashu Puri. The friends of Ashu Puri attacked Gurjeet, Parminder and Gurjinder with a sword, belt, kicks and fist blows. Gurjeet Singh extricated himself and boarded the vehicle. He tried to hit Sarul Kapila and Ashu Kanav. Sarul Kapila was hit by the vehicle, and Gurjeet again tried to hit him, but he went towards a corner. Gurjeet, Purjinder, Parminder, Harshdeep and Mahesh Kaushal had conspired together to kill Ashu Puri, and Gurjeet had attempted to kill Sarul Kapila. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for 7 2026:HHC:26009 the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The status report does not show the petitioner’s involvement. The petitioner was merely talking to Ashu Puri, which is not a crime. He had not shared any common intention with the co-accused, as he had remained with Ashu Puri after the first incident was over. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for entering into a conspiracy to murder Ashu Puri. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy to murder Ashu Puri. He separated Ashu Puri from his friends and prevented Ashu Puri from boarding the vehicle. These circumstances prima facie show the 8 2026:HHC:26009 petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime. Therefore, 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) “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 9 2026:HHC:26009 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 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) 10 2026:HHC:26009 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 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 11 2026:HHC:26009 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 an application for bail 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 (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 12 2026:HHC:26009 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 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. 13 2026:HHC:26009 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 status report, the statements of the witnesses produced before the Court and the CCTV footage clearly show that many members of both parties had boarded their respective vehicles after the first incident was over. Ashu Puri remained on the spot because the petitioner, Mahesh Kaushal, was talking to him. Ashu Puri had also tried to go towards his vehicle, but the petitioner prevented him from doing so. The informant specifically stated that he had called Ashu Puri to board the vehicle, but he continued to talk to the petitioner. Prima facie, these allegations show that the petitioner's act was deliberate and was meant to keep Ashu Puri on the spot to facilitate the co- accused in committing the crime. Hence, there is prima facie sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 12. It was submitted that the contents of the FIR were distorted to facilitate the informant party to give a favourable 14 2026:HHC:26009 colour to the incident. The injuries sustained by Gurjeet, Parminder and Purjinder were not explained. This submission will not help the petitioner. The police conducted the investigation after the registration of the FIR, recorded the statements of witnesses and went through the CCTV footage of various cameras located in the hotel. Therefore, the police have brought out a true picture before the Court, and merely because the explanation for the injuries was not provided in the FIR will not make the prosecution's case suspect. 13. The petitioner is involved in a conspiracy to murder Ashu Puri. The police filed the charge sheet for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of the BNS, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Thus, the offence is heinous, and the punishment is severe. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244: “6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must 15 2026:HHC:26009 revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows: [Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51] “I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point, three elements will generally be found the most important: the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death.” 16 2026:HHC:26009 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 14. No other point was urged. 15. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 16. 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 2nd July, 2026 (Chander)