Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16717 (HP)

Vikas v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-11

Sandeep Sharma

body2026
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Bail petitioner namely Vikas, who is behind the bars since 24.12.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 255 of 2025, dated 12.11.2025, under Sections 115 (2), 126 (2), 109, 351 (2) & 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at PS Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent State has filed status report and HC Vikas Chaudhary, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of record/status report reveals that on 12.11.2025, police received a telephonic information that person namely Saurav Kumar i.e. complaint has been given beatings at Devi Nagar by persons namely Hamza and Satbir. Police after having reached the spot recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 173 of the BNSS, wherein he alleged that on afore date at about 7:20pm, while he was standing with Daji Momowala at Shani Mandir near Barf Factory, afore co-accused came on the spot and gave him beatings. Complainant alleged that accused firstly attempted to file a gunshot at him as well as his friends Naveen and Manish but since Katta/Gun did not work, accused hit him with brick, as a result of which, he suffered serious injuries. He stated that after being hit by the accused, he fell, as a result of which, his hand suffered burn injuries. In the afore background, FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the accused namely Hamza and Satbir, who allegedly, disclosed to the police that he had given one Desi Katta (country pistol) and magazine to present bail petitioner. When police reached house of the bail petitioner, he allegedly fled from the spot, but police recovered one desi katta, two live rounds and magazine from his house. In the afore background, petitioner also came to be booked under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete 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. Mr. In the afore background, petitioner also came to be booked under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete 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. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contends 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, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Mr. Chauhan, states that till date, petitioner has not disclosed the source from where, he along with other accused had purchased the country pistol. He states that since deadly weapon has been recovered from the house of the petitioner coupled with the fact that he is good friend of the accused, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that eventuality, he may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the complainant, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the learned trial Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that at no point of time, petitioner herein was involved in inflicting the injury on the person of the complainant. As per own version of the complainant, on the date of the alleged incident, persons namely Hamza and Satbir gave him beatings. It is only on account of recovery of country pistol, two live rounds and magazine, case under the Arms Act has been registered against the petitioner. Co-accused, who allegedly gave beatings to the complainant allegedly disclosed to the police that desi katta (country pistol), two live rounds and magazine recovered from the house of the petitioner were supplied by him. Though learned Deputy Advocate General attempted to argue that source from where petitioner procured country made weapon is not being disclosed by the petitioner, but once co-accused Hamza has categorically stated to the police that he had supplied one country pistol, two live rounds and magazines to the present bail petitioner Vikas, petitioner otherwise cannot be compelled to disclose source. Though learned Deputy Advocate General attempted to argue that source from where petitioner procured country made weapon is not being disclosed by the petitioner, but once co-accused Hamza has categorically stated to the police that he had supplied one country pistol, two live rounds and magazines to the present bail petitioner Vikas, petitioner otherwise cannot be compelled to disclose source. As per own case of the prosecution, co-accused Hamza procured country pistol from person namely Abdul Hansari from Saharanpur, who is stated to be absconding. Since there is no connection of the petitioner with above named Hansari coupled with the  fact that Katta recovered from his house, was supplied to him by the co-accused Hamza, this Court sees no impediment in considering the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail. Admittedly, country pistol, which was allegedly attempted to be used on the date of alleged incident was got recovered  by  the  petitioner  from  bushes  near  Shiv  Mandir,  meaning thereby, weapon allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner is not the same, which was allegedly used by the co-accused at the time of the alleged incident. Since petitioner was not present on the spot of incident coupled with the fact that weapon allegedly recovered from his house was not used for commission of offence, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than three months. There is nothing on record to suggest that bail petitioner is hardened criminal and in past, some criminal case stands registered against him. 6. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence collected on record, but having taken note of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for an indefinite period during trial, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. 7. It is well settled that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. 7. It is well settled that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the accused in afore cases is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, it may not be in the interest of justice to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite  period  during  trial. 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. 8. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. 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 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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 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. 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 vs. 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. 12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. 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, bail 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail 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) 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. 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 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.