IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2026 Date of Decision: 9.7.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Chunko Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shwetima Dogra and Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ASI Sandeep Kumar, PS Bharmour, present with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Chunko Devi, who is behind the bars since 24.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.64/2025, dated 22.11.2025 under Sections 103, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 351 (2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short the BNS), registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 2 2. Pursuant to order dated 25.6.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Sandeep Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 22.11.2025, police received telephonic information from Health Centre Bharmour that three persons namely Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Anjali have been brought in injured condition for treatment. Police after having reached the afore Health Centre found that aforesaid three persons were under treatment. Person namely Sanjay Kumar was declared unfit to make statement and as such, police recorded the statement of Anjli, wife of Sanjay Kumar, who alleged that on 22.11.2025 at 11:00am, while she along with her husband Sanjay, brother-in-law Sanjeev Kumar and mother- in-law Biaso Devi, was present in her residence, person namely Lucky, who lives in her neighborhood, started throwing woods stacked on the retaining wall of the courtyard. She alleged that after having heard the noise, her husband Sanjay Kumar came out and asked above named Lucky to not throw the woods, but he started hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that co-accused also gave beatings to her husband with danda, as a result of which, he started crying and she along with her brother-in-law also came on the spot. She alleged that when she as well as her brother-in-law 3 Sanjeev attempted to stop co-accused Lucky and his mother i.e. present bail petitioner, they were not only given beatings by them but present bail petitioner Chunko Devi, asked co-accused Lucky to push her as well as her brother-in-law from the retaining wall. She alleged that present bail petitioner and Lucky pushed her as well as her brother-in-law from Danga, as a result of which, they both suffered injuries. Police after having recorded the statement of complainant, named herein above, got all the injured medically examined, wherein injuries suffered by them were found to be grievous in nature. Unfortunately, person namely Sanjeev Kumar, who was allegedly given blow of danda on his head by the co-accused Lucky succumbed to the injuries at Tanda. In the afore background, FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner as well as her son Lucky and since then, they both are behind the bars. 4. Since challan stands filed in the court and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, she has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no case much less case under Section 103 of BNS is made out against the petitioner because as per own case of the prosecution, Sanjeev Kumar died 4 on account of injuries suffered on his head. He submitted that since blow of danda was allegedly given on the head of Sanjeev Kumar by co-accused Lucky, there was no occasion, if any, for the prosecution to register case against the petitioner under Section 103 of BNS. He submitted that otherwise also, FSL report clearly reveals that complainant Anjali and deceased Sanjeev fell from the height of six feet only and on account of such fall, they did not suffer grievous injuries, which could be said to have caused death of Sanjeev Kumar. Mr. Chandel, further submitted that as per DNA report, blood of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar has not matched with the blood allegedly found on the weapon of offence i.e. danda. Lastly, Mr. Chandel contended that petitioner is behind the bars for approximately eight months, but till date, prosecution has not been able to examine even single witness and in case, she is left to incarcerate for an indefinite period during trial, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but violate the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contended 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 her, she does not deserve any leniency. He submitted 5 that as per case of the prosecution, deceased Sanjeev Kumar as well as complainant Anjli were pushed by present bail petitioner and co-accused Lucky from the retaining wall, as a result of which, they fell on the ground and suffered serious injuries. Mr. Kahol stated that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record that present bail petitioner instigated co- accused Lucky to give beatings to the deceased Sanjeev Kumar and complainant Anjli and once it stands proved on record that deceased died on account of infliction of injuries on his head, petitioner herein also deserves to be dealt with in accordance with law under Section 103 of BNS. He submitted that learned court below after having framed charges has now posted the matter for recording the statement of PWs on 10.7.2026, 13.7.2026 and 14.7.2026, and as such, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 7. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that in nutshell case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein is that she along with co- accused Lucky also pushed the complainant as well as deceased Sanjeev Kumar from the retaining wall, height of which from the ground was 6 ½ feet. If the statement of the complainant made at the first instance is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that she alleged that while she 6 along with her brother-in-law attempted to rescue her husband Sanjay, co- accused Lucky along with his mother Chunko Devi i.e. present bail petitioner, not only gave them beatings but present bail petitioner asked co- accused Lucky to push her as well as her brother-in-law from the retaining wall. Though status report reveals that bail petitioner along with co- accused Lucky pushed the complainant as well as deceased Sanjeev Kumar from the retaining wall, but having taken note of the post mortem report, placed on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, that cause of death of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar is not on account of fall from the retaining wall, rather he is reported to have expired on account of having suffered head injuries allegedly given by the co-accused Lucky. Similarly, this Court finds no material worth credence at this stage suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner herein had any knowledge or intention to kill the deceased Sanjeev Kumar. Mere fact that she asked her son namely Lucky to push the complainant as well as her brother-in-law may not be sufficient to conclude knowledge or intention. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that cause of death of the deceased was on account of injuries suffered by him on his head, which allegedly, in the case at hand, were inflicted by co-accused Lucky i.e. son of the bail petitioner. Whether bail petitioner had instigated her son or she had 7 actually asked him to push the complainant as well as deceased from the retaining wall are the questions to be decided by the learned trial Court in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but certainly, having taken note of the cause of death of the deceased coupled with the fact that present bail petitioner is 55 years old lady, this Court sees no reason to let her incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when she has already suffered for approximately eight months without her being held guilty. 8. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but for the reasons as have been taken note herein above, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when she has already suffered for more than two years and is suffering from multiple diseases. 9. No doubt, in the instant case, petitioner is accused of having indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact upon the society, but mere gravity of offence cannot be the sole criteria to reject the bail, rather certain other factors are also required to be taken into consideration. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court 8 in Jeet Ram v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2003(HP) 23, wherein it has been held as under:- “7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question. 8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh 10 caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under : "........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a 9 case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal." 9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise : "Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail." 10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused 11 such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.” “12.There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the 10 accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account”. 10. Repeatedly, Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in a catena of judgments that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, she may flee from justice, can be best met by putting her to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. 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 11 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 v. 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 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. 12 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 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. She shall make herself 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; b. She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. She shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, 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. 13 18. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the 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. July 9, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ), (manjit) Judge