IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1145 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur and Mr. Prikshit Singh Kanwar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Parmod Singh, Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Amit Kumar, who is behind bars since 31.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.07 of 2026, dated 25.01.2026, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 118, 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Parmod Singh, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 25.01.2026, Police received information that one person namely Suman Kumar, who has been allegedly given beatings by Amit Kumar, has been brought for treatment at Vivekanand Hospital. Police, after reaching at the spot, recorded the statement of complainant Suman Kumar, who alleged that on 22.01.2026, while he was going for his work, his neighbour, namely Amit Kumar, present petitioner, obstructed his passage and started hurling abuses. He alleged that he brought the matter to the notice of Pradhan Suresh Ji and also made a written complaint at Police Station Panchrukhi. He alleged that on 25.01.2026 at 03:00 PM, while Police had come for investigation at his house, Police also tried to contact Amit Kumar, but he was not found at his residence. However, at 06:00 PM, while he was going towards his land, which is at a distance of 500 to 600 meters from his house, Amit Kumar obstructed his passage and attempted to kill him by inflicting injury on his neck by khukri. Complainant alleged that had he not raised his hand, Amit Kumar would have killed him with khukri. After having recorded the afore statement, Police lodged FIR detailed hereinabove and took the complainant to hospital for treatment. Medical officer attending upon complainant, found the injuries to be grievous and dangerous to life. -3- 4. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner who is behind bars for more than six months, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that petitioner, with the intention to kill complainant, attacked him with khukri, that too on the vital part of his body. He states that had complainant not raised his hand to protect himself from the khukri, he would have died. While admitting that complainant has recovered from injuries and at present discharged from the hospital, Mr. Kahol states that complaint has been made by complainant to the effect that he is being threatened by father of the accused and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who in the event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the complainant, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law. -4- 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material already available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather there is ample evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, accused gave blow of khukri on the neck of complainant, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injury, which could be dangerous to life. However, having taken note of fact that complainant has recovered from his injuries, and at present he stands discharged from the hospital, coupled with the fact that petitioner is behind bars for more than six months, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 7. To prove case under Section 109 of BNS, prosecution is under obligation to prove intention and knowledge of accused to kill the complainant. Admittedly, in the case at hand, attack came to be made by deadly weapon khukri, but whether such attack was with the intention or knowledge to kill the complainant, is a question to be determined by the Court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution. Since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, it will not be in the interest of justice to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for more than six months. Though documents adduced on record along with the status report reveal that father -5- of the bail petitioner extended threats to the complainant, but having taken note of old-age of the father of the petitioner, which is stated to be 76 years, coupled with the fact that he, at present, is suffering from many ailments, as is evident from the documents made available to this Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, there can be threat to the life of the complainant, moreover, in that situation, it is always open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be -6- 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 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. -7- 12. 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. 13. 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, present 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 ₹1,00,000/- 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 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. 14. 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. -8- 15. 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. 16. The 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. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 14th July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi