2026:HHC:34776 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1542 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Karandeep Singh .....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. Anuj Bali and Mr. Ajay Sharma, 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 Nek Ram, Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Karandeep Singh, who is behind bars since 31.05.2026, 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 case FIR No.45 of 2026, dated 31.05.2026, registered at Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 109, 115(2), 324(4), 351(2), 352, 117(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:34776 -2- 2. Respondent-State has filed status reports, and ASI Nek Ram, Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 30.05.2026, SI Hoshiar Singh, Investigating Officer, Police Station Manikaran, recorded a statement of Priyanshu Thakur under Section 173 of BNSS, wherein he, while claiming himself to be a resident of Village Bagiyanda, Post Office Jari, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, alleged that on 30.05.2026, he took passengers from Katagla Valley View Hotel and reached near Gurudwara Road at around 4:12 PM towards Manikaran and dropped them at Gurudwara Road. After that, while he was going towards Manikaran, driving vehicle bearing No.HP-01K-8418 (Alto Car), three persons were walking in the middle of the road on uphill side. He alleged that to avoid breaking the momentum of vehicle, he blew horn, but they did not move aside, rather one of them turned back and dared him to run over him. Without arguing much, said Priyanshu Thakur, accelerated the car and drove away. He alleged that there was a traffic congestion about 100 meters ahead, as a result thereof his car was stuck in the jam, and in the meanwhile, aforesaid three persons also caught up with complainant and attempted to give him beatings. Complainant alleged that he closed the front windows and locked the car from inside, but the rear windows of the car were open, as a result thereof, one person in a blue shirt 2026:HHC:34776 -3- slapped him from behind. Said Priyanshu recorded a video wherein they were threatening to kill him. He alleged that though these persons attempted to damage his car, but he turned his car from the front and started going towards Kasol. He also alleged that while he was going towards Kasol, aforesaid persons who had given him beatings, while he was stuck in the jam, came from behind driving car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612 and he called ASI Prem of Police Station Manikaran on his phone No.85447-84882 at 4:29 PM, who asked him to call on phone No.78078-32535 of Police Station Bhuntar, on which he called Police Station Manikaran and he was asked to come to the Police Station, but he could not reach to the Police Station due to a traffic jam. He alleged that in the meantime, these persons, who were chasing him in their car, overtook and went ahead and he was left behind. He called Ranjan Saklani's phone No.98575-00130 at Police Post Dunkhra at 4:56 PM, who assured that they would stop the car. He also disclosed to the Police that he also called his friend Yuvraj on his phone No.80917-71072 at 5:01 PM, who was at Kasol along with his friends. He disclosed entire incident to Yuvraj and his friends, who saw the car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612 parked outside Hotel Green Valley, Kasol. In the meantime, he also reached there. As per the prosecution story, when the complainant and his friends reached the hotel, petitioner Karandeep Singh was found sitting alone inside the car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612. An altercation took place, and Yuvraj pulled the petitioner out of the car and slapped 2026:HHC:34776 -4- him. Upon petitioner Karandeep Singh raising hue and cry, his friends namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, and Taman Preet came out to the spot. During the scuffle between the complainant party and accused party, co-accused Manpreet Singh pulled out pistol. As the complainant party attempted to overpower him, he fell to the ground, and two gunshots were fired, one of which hit the leg of Yuvraj. 4. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against persons, namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, Karandeep Singh, Taman Preet and Sukhmandeep. Co-accused Taman Preet, Manpreet Singh, and Armaan Randhawa have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026 passed in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1424, 1448 & 1456 of 2026, whereas co-accused Sukhmandeep, being a juvenile, was also granted bail earlier. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated and was actually the victim who was assaulted by the complainant party while sitting alone in the car, qua which FIR No.46 of 2026 was also lodged at Police Station Manikaran. It is submitted that bail petitioner Karandeep Singh was neither involved in the alleged firing nor any weapon came to be recovered from him. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further argued that bare perusal of the status report itself suggests that it was the complainant and his friends who actually gave beatings to the 2026:HHC:34776 -5- accused named in the FIR and were aggressors in the later incident, as a result whereof, one of the accused, namely Manpreet Singh, apprehending danger to his life, though pulled out the pistol, but before he could use the same, complainant's friends started snatching the pistol and in that process, two bullets were fired, one of which, unfortunately, hit the leg of Yuvraj. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further argued that it was the complainant party which came to the Hotel Green Valley, where accused named in the FIR were putting up and it is on the provocation of the complainant and his friends, that three of the accused named in the FIR came out of their room and attempted to save one of their friends, namely Karandeep Singh, i.e. present bail petitioner, who was being given merciless beatings by the complainant and his friends. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, coupled with the fact that co-accused having identical and graver roles have already been granted bail by this Court, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to the completion of investigation, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve leniency, rather, needs to be dealt with severely. He submitted that since bail petitioner hails from the State of Punjab, there is every 2026:HHC:34776 -6- likelihood of his fleeing from justice in the event of being enlarged on bail and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material already available on record, this Court finds that petitioner Karandeep Singh was sitting inside the parked vehicle when the complainant party arrived and initiated the scuffle by pulling him out and slapping him. The gunshot was allegedly fired during the scuffle involving co-accused Manpreet Singh, who has already been granted bail along with other co- accused. On the ground of parity, as well as the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for over two and a half months and investigation is complete, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period during trial. 8. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner made available three to four video recordings of the incident, authenticity whereof is yet to be established on record by proving the same in accordance with law. However, Investigating Officer present in the Court apprised this Court that video recordings made available to this Court have been already taken into possession by the Police, but same have been sent for forensic analysis. 9. After having perused video recordings, coupled with the fact that that entire incident of beatings as well as firing gunshot happened in third incident, i.e. the incident of firing, this 2026:HHC:34776 -7- Court is of the view that complainant party first provoked person sitting in the car, which had allegedly overtaken the vehicle of the complainant. Yuvraj slapped person sitting in the car, i.e. the present petitioner, whereafter his other friends also reached on the spot and scuffle took place inter se them. Manpreet Singh, no doubt, pulled out his pistol from his pocket, but before he could load the same, complainant party overpowered him, as a result thereof he fell on the ground. Video clearly reveals that five to six persons had overpowered Manpreet Singh and while he was trying to save himself from the clutches of complainant party, two gunshots came to be fired indiscriminately, one of which hit the leg of Yuvraj. 10. There is another glaring aspect to the matter. As per complainant, he, before giving telephonic call to his friend Yuvraj, had actually given three telephonic calls to Police, but there is nothing to substantiate such fact, rather, as per own case of Police, they received telephonic information with regard to incident at 2:18 AM, that too after eight hours of the alleged incident of firing. 11. Though case at hand would be decided by the learned trial Court in totality of evidence led on record by prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than two and a half months. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that 2026:HHC:34776 -8- one is deemed to be innocent till the time his or her guilt is not proved in accordance with law. Since guilt of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence, there appears to be no justification 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 bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions. 12. 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. 13. 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. 2026:HHC:34776 -9- 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial 2026:HHC:34776 -10- 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 18th August, 2026 Rajeev Raturi