2026:HHC:26009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 437, 438 and 453 of 2026 Reserved on: 23.6.2026 Date of Decision: 2.7.2026. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 437 of 2026 Ashutosh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 438 of 2026 Chand Thakur …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 453 of 2026 Shiv Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Ms Shwetima Dogra, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 437 and 438 of 2026 and Mr Sanjeev Suri, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) No. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26009 453 of 2026. For the respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. For the victim : Mr Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with Mr Hitender Verma, Advocate, in all the petitions. [[ Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 359 of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Ranbir Singh was invited to the birthday party of Purjinder Singh. He and the other people came out after attending the party. Ashu Puri, Sarul Kapila, Akash, Shiv Kumar, Billu, Ashu Dhanna, Chand Thakur and Deepanshu attacked the informing party with sharp-edged weapons. Purjinder Singh, Parminder Singh and Jaswinder Singh sustained grievous injuries. They were sent to PGI, Chandigarh, for their treatment. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The 3 2026:HHC:26009 petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. There is no direct or indirect evidence connecting them to the commission of the crime. The petitioners are the sole earners of their respective families. The FIR against the petitioners were lodged as a counterblast to the FIR No. 358 registered against the informant party. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the petitioners be released on bail. 3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Ranbir Singh filed a written complaint before the police stating that he was called to a party to celebrate the birthday of Purjinder Singh. The informant and other persons came out of the hotel after taking the meal. Ashu Puri, Sarul Kapila, Akash, Shiv Kumar, Ashu Kanav, Chand Thakur and Deepanshu attacked the informant party. Purjinder Singh, Parminder Singh and Jasvindar Singh sustained injuries. They were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. Purjinder had sustained multiple injuries to his head, leading to urgent surgical intervention. Jaswinder had sustained grievous injuries. The police seized various articles and found that the incident was 4 2026:HHC:26009 recorded on the CCTV cameras. The police seized the recording from CCTV cameras. The police found after the investigation that Ashutosh had visited the hotel to celebrate his birthday with his friends. Ashutosh had brought a sword in his vehicle. All the friends of Ashutosh were celebrating Ashutosh’s birthday by cutting the cake and setting off the firecrackers. They were playing music in their vehicle. Gurjeet Maan and his friends came out of the hotel. Both parties had a scuffle. Akash took out the sword from Ashutosh's vehicle. Ashutosh and his friends attacked Gurjeet Maan and his friends. Ashutosh again went towards his vehicle, but did not find anything inside it. The arms of Jaswinder were broken in the incident. Parminder shot Ashu Puri, who died on the spot. Sarul Kapila snatched the pistol from Parminder and tried to attack Purjinder. Sarul Kapila inflicted multiple injuries to Purjinder and Parminder with a sword. Ashutosh instigated Sarul Kapila by saying, ‘kill him’. Gurjeet Maan drove his vehicle and hit Sarul Kapila. The sword fell from Sarul’s hands. Ashutosh picked up the sword and went away. Subsequently, the sword was produced, which was seized by the police. Ashutosh and his friends had attacked Parminder and Purjinder with the intent to kill them. Ashutosh had instigated 5 2026:HHC:26009 Sarul Kapila by saying, ‘kill him’. Purjinder and Parminder were getting their treatment from PGI, Chandigarh. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms Shwethima Dogra, learned Counsel for the petitioners Ashutosh and Chand Thakur, Mr Sanjeev Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner Shiv Kumar, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr Rajeev Jiwan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Hitender Verma, learned counsel for the victim. 5. Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners Ashutosh and Chand Thakur, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The status report and the CCTV footage show that Parminder had shot Ashu Pri, and thereafter Sarul Kapila had attacked Parminder and Purjinder in the exercise of their right of private defence. The incident occurred all of a sudden without any premeditation as both parties were celebrating birthdays. A person cannot be held liable for sharing the common intention in such a situation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail. 6 2026:HHC:26009 6. Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner Shiv Kumar adopted the submissions made by Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate and prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the status report and the CCTV footage show that the pistol was snatched from Parminder and there was no threat to the lives of any person. However, Sarul Kapila attacked Parminder and Purjinder with a sword. They sustained grievous injuries. The act of Sarul Kapila was retaliatory and not in the exercise of private defence. Accused Ashutosh had brought the sword in his vehicle, and he had instigated Sarul Kapila to kill Parminder and Purjinder. The other accused had beaten the members of the informant party, clearly showing that they shared a common intention. The offence alleged against the petitioners is heinous and punishable with imprisonment for life. The petitioners should not be released on bail, considering the gravity of the offence. He prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. Mr Rajiv Jivan, learned Senior Advocate for the victim, adopted the submissions of Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned 7 2026:HHC:26009 Additional Advocate for the respondent State and submitted that the petitioners had attacked Purjinder and Parminder repeatedly after the incident was over. There was nothing to show that any threat was caused to the petitioners. Therefore, the acts of the petitioners were deliberate with the intent to harm the victims. The victims are struggling for their lives, and the petitioners should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, an arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre- arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the 8 2026:HHC:26009 nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 11. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 12. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should 9 2026:HHC:26009 balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 13. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The status report, the statements recorded by the police during the investigation, and the CCTV footage show that petitioner Ashutosh had brought a sword in his vehicle, which was used for the commission of the crime. As per the petitioner, he had visited the hotel to celebrate the party of his friend. He has not provided any explanation for bringing a sword in his vehicle. The bringing of a sword in the vehicle and its use during 10 2026:HHC:26009 the incident shows that the incident was premeditated, and the submission that the incident occurred suddenly is not acceptable. 15. The status report and the CCTV footage show that Akash, Chand Thakur, Sarul Kapila, Niteesh, Ashutosh, Dipanshu, and Abhishek attacked the informant party after Parminder had shot Ashu Puri. Sarul Kapila was armed with a sword. Chand Thakur had also used the sword to inflict injuries on Gurjeet Singh. The petitioner, Ashu Kanav, had told Sarul Kapila to kill Purjinder and Parminder. These allegations prima facie show the petitioners’ involvement in the commission of the crime. 16. The Medical Officer stated that the injuries sustained by Parminder required urgent surgical treatment. The injuries were sustained on the head. The injuries were caused by means of a sword, a sharp-edged weapon, on the head, a vital part of the body, and prima facie show that they were caused with an intent to kill because had Parminder died, Sarul Kapil would have been guilty of the commission of the murder as causing injury on the head, a vital part of the body with a deadly weapon ‘sword’ would have disclosed an intention to kill. 11 2026:HHC:26009 17. It was submitted that the injuries were caused in the right of private defence. This submission is stated to be rejected. The status report shows that Sarul Kapila had snatched the pistol from Parminder, and he had tried to attack Purjinder with the blunt side of the revolver. Therefore, there was no threat to any person because Parminder was disarmed; however, Sarul Kapila inflicted the injuries by means of a sword to Parminder and Purjinder. Petitioner Ashutosh instigated him to kill them. The other accused also gave beatings to the other members of the informant party. This clearly shows that all the persons shared a common intention to take revenge for the death of Ashu Puri. Hence, the submission that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no common intention cannot be accepted. 18. It was submitted that the police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to bail. This submission will not help the petitioners. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. N. Sanjay, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1747, that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted because 12 2026:HHC:26009 the charge sheet has been filed or the custodial interrogation is not required. It was observed at page 397: “26. In a litany of pronouncements, from Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 to Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 17 SCC 521, the Court cautioned against elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or rendering findings basis the same when seized with the question of considering whether or not to grant bail. Indeed, as held by us in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510: ‘11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this Court through its pronouncements are illustrative and not exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own facts and merits.…’ (emphasis supplied) 27. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C K, (2022) 17 SCC 391, it was held: ‘12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso, and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding 13 2026:HHC:26009 an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked, and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.’ (emphasis supplied) 28. In P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, it was stated: ‘23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, that it would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required, that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required, the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence, etc. 24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into it. 25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point and the investigation should be permitted to proceed further.’ (emphasis supplied) 14 2026:HHC:26009 19. This position was reiterated in Ashok Kumar vs Union Territory of Chandigarh Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9949/2023) decided on 01.03.2024 wherein it was observed: “12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigating the alleged crime. It is equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not required, that by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature.” 20. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail simply because a charge sheet has been filed before the Court. 21. The offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS is punishable with imprisonment for life. Thus, the offence is grave, 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 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 15 2026:HHC:26009 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.” 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. 16 2026:HHC:26009 22. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be held entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment. 23. No other point was urged. 24. In view of the above, the present petitions fail, and these are dismissed. 25. 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)