IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.408 of 2026 Date of Decision:01.04.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rahish Khan @ Raees ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. HC Pradeep Kumar No.209, PS Majra, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Rahish Khan @ Raees, who is behind bars since 03.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.180 of 2025, dated 29.10.2025, under Sections 115(2) & 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and HC Pradeep Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that police, after having received telephone call from Civil Hospital, Paonta, to the effect that person namely Rahim has been brought for treatment with head injury, reached hospital and recorded the statement of above named Rahim under Section 173 of BNSS, wherein he alleged that on 24.10.2025, at about 10:00 p.m., while he was standing in front of his house, bail-petitioner namely Rahish Khan @ Raees, who is resident of the same village, came there and started having boiled eggs from one cart (rehri). Complainant alleged that while having boiled eggs, bail-petitioner asked him why he was standing there. Complainant categorically replied that he was standing in front of his house and bail-petitioner could not have any objection qua the same. He alleged that after having heard this reply, bail-petitioner assaulted and gave him beatings. Bail-petitioner inflicted a blow of brick on the head of the complainant, as a result of which, he suffered serious head injuries. After recording the aforesaid statement, police took the complainant to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Paonta, who opined the injuries to be grievous in nature. In the afore 2 background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and he is behind bars since 03.11.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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. Mr. Panwar, states that as per opinion given by the Medical Officer, injuries inflicted on the head of the complainant could be dangerous to his life, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Investigating Agency, while booking the bail-petitioner under Section 109 of BNS. He further submitted that bail-petitioner is a quarrelsome person, who in the event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may also cause harm to the complainant, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law, as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected. 3 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the status report/record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, some altercation took place inter se complainant and the bail-petitioner and allegedly bail-petitioner gave a blow of brick on the head of the complainant, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries. Complainant was got medically examined on 25.10.2025 and at the relevant time, Medical Officer attending upon him termed the injuries to be grievous in nature. MLC adduced on record of afore date nowhere suggests that injuries were opined to be dangerous to life. However, subsequently police sought a specific opinion from the Medical Officer “whether injuries inflicted on the person of the complainant could be dangerous to life or not?” In response to afore query, Doctor opined that injuries suffered by the complainant were dangerous to life. Though Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that there was no occasion, if any, for the Medial Officer to give specific opinion with regard to possibility of injuries to be dangerous in life at first instance, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Panwar, for the reason that very purpose of getting the complainant medically examined is to see the nature of injuries and its possible consequences. In the case at hand, Medical 4 Officer at first instance opined the injuries to be grievous in nature, but he nowhere specifically mentioned that same could be dangerous to life. However, after four days of MLC, Medical Officer, on the request of police, gave opinion that injuries suffered by the complainant could be dangerous to his life. Though case against the bail-petitioner is yet to be decided by the learned Court below in totality of evidence led by the prosecution, but having regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, coupled with the fact that complainant has already recovered from injuries and at present, there is no threat to his life, this Court sees no reason to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already remained in custody for more than five months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically apprised this Court that complainant was discharged from the hospital on the same day, which fact has not been refuted by the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court 5 sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 8. 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 a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain 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. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid 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 6 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 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. 7 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 9. 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. 10. 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, 8 severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. 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. 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.1,00,000/- with one surety 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 9 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. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the learned 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 April 01, 2026 (sunil) 10