IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1288 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Mahinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Gill and Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Mahinder Kumar, who is behind the bars since 22.2.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0055 of 2026, dated 17.02.2026, under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 109, 310(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Police District Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Mahesh Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record as well as status report, reveals that on 17.02.2026, police party, after having received information that two boys in injured condition have been brought for treatment at CHC Nalagarh, reached the afore hospital, where persons namely Balwinder Singh and Neeraj, were found to be under treatment. Medical Officer attending upon the aforesaid victims opined that the injuries suffered by the injured/victims have been caused by sharp-edged weapons and referred both the injured to PGI, Chandigarh. Since persons, who had suffered injuries, were found fit for making statement, police recorded the statement of Balwinder Singh, who alleged that he is in the business of sale and purchase of scrap and for last many months, some dispute was going between him and person namely Shubham Rana. He alleged that on 17.02.2026 at 5:00 PM, while he, along with his friend Neeraj, was going to his house riding motorcycle bearing No. HP-12E-6763 and had reached near JVM Company, one black coloured Alto car came from opposite side, and driver of the same parked the Car in front of his motorcycle. He alleged that five boys alighted from the Alto car carrying weapons. He alleged that three boys fired gunshots and other two inflicted injuries with the darat 3 and sickle/axe, as a result whereof, they suffered serious injuries. He alleged that accused also snatched Rs.25,000/- from him. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by victim Balwinder Singh, police lodged FIR, and subsequently, arrested persons namely Bhindri, Shubham and Keshu and they are behind bars. Since it emerged in investigation that after the alleged incident, bail petitioner had helped the accused to park the aforesaid Alto Car in his brother’s godown, he also came to be named in the FIR. 4. During investigation, police found that present bail petitioner had prior knowledge with regard to plan of Shubham to kill Balwinder, but not only he kept mum, but after commission of the offence, helped the accused to hide their car. Since 22.02.2026, bail petitioner is behind the bars. 5. 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 instant proceedings for grant of bail. 6. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He states that as per status report filed by the respondent-State, neither petitioner was present on the spot of alleged incident nor he had shared information, if any, with 4 the accused regarding location of Balwinder and Neeraj. While referring to the status report, Mr.Gill states that petitioner has been roped in on the basis of so-called confessional statement, which is not permissible. He states that since challan stands filed in competent Court of Law and nothing remains to be recovered from petitioner coupled with the fact that question “whether petitioner had connived with other co-accused and he had knowledge with regard to parking of car used in commission of the offence in the godown of his brother”, is to be decided by learned trial court in totality of evidence led on record by prosecution and no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping the bail petitioner in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for almost six months. 7. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in 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. While making this Court peruse status report, Mr. Kahol, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record to suggest that bail petitioner was one of the conspirators, who, though did not go to the site of occurrence, but was providing all necessary infrastructures to accused, who subsequently fired 5 gunshot at Balwinder Singh and Neeraj. He states that complainant himself admitted during his interrogation that he and his friend Shubham had some issue with Balwinder and Neeraj and he had told Shubham that he has called some boys to teach them lesson. Lastly, Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner has committed heinous crime punishable under Section109 of the BNS coupled with the fact that statements of victims/injured, are yet to be recorded in the learned trial Court, it may not be in the interest of justice, to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, who in that event, may not only flee from justice, but again cause harm to the victims. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, present bail petitioner Mahender Kumar was not present on the spot of occurrence, rather, precise allegation, as has been leveled against him in the status report, is that he, after commission of offence by other co- accused, namely Shubham, Bhindri and Keshu, helped them to hide their Alto Car in the godown of his brother and thereafter, he also provided his own motorcycle to them for fleeing from the spot. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse status report, attempted to argue that bail petitioner himself admitted that he, along with his friend Shubham, had some issue with Balwinder and 6 Neeraj and he had called some boys from outside for attacking Balwinder Singh, but statement, if any, of this kind cannot be used against the bail petitioner. There is no evidence worth credence adduced on record at this stage to prove that bail petitioner had actually connived with co-accused Shubham, Bhindri and Keshu to kill Balwinder and Neeraj. Since car used in the commission of offence was found parked in the godown of the brother of the present bail petitioner coupled with the fact that present bail petitioner is friend of Shubham, petitioner herein also came to be named in FIR. No doubt petitioner is accused of having committed heinous crime punishable under Section 109 of BNS, but once he was not present on spot, coupled with the fact that he did not inflict any kind of injury on the person of Balwinder Singh and Neeraj, it would be too premature to conclude the complicity of the bail petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. Otherwise also, question with regard to connivance and prior knowledge, if any, of the planning of other co-accused to kill Balwinder Singh and Neeraj, shall be decided by learned court below in totality of evidence laid on record by respective parties. 9. 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, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Since, guilt, if any, of the 7 bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail 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 or may cause harm to the victims, can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions. 10. 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. 11. 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. 8 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 9 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. August 11, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (manjit) Judge