2026:HHC:32275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 872 of 2026 along with connected matters. Reserved on: 3.8.2026 Date of Decision: 04.08.2026. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 872 of 2026 Amaninderjit Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 873 of 2026 Gurdeep Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 874 of 2026 Lakhwinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 875 of 2026 Baljeet Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 2 2026:HHC:32275 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 876 of 2026 Davender Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 6. Cr.MP(M) No. 877 of 2026 Harinder Pal Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 7. Cr.MP(M) No. 878 of 2026 Surjeet Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 8. Cr.MP(M) No. 879 of 2026 Amritpal Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 9. Cr.MP(M) No. 880 of 2026 Dilpreet Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 10. Cr.MP(M) No. 881 of 2026 Manjeet Singh …. Petitioner 3 2026:HHC:32275 Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 11. Cr.MP(M) No. 882 of 2026 Narender Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents 12. Cr.MP(M) No. 883 of 2026 Jaspal Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, with Mr Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, in all the petitions. For Respondent No.1/ State. : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, in all the petitions. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate. [ Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No 88 of 2026 dated 10.05.2026 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 4 2026:HHC:32275 registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act). 2. Since all the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being taken up together for convenience. 3. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioners and other co-sharers are in possession of the land situated in Mauja Puruwala Santokhgarh. The possession was delivered to the petitioners and other co-sharers on 21.04.2026, 22.04.2026, 06.05.2026 and 07.05.2026. The petitioners and other co-sharers found that the informant Pawan Kumar and other persons had entered the land on 10.05.2026. They were sowing maize using a tractor. The petitioners and the co-sharers enquired as to why the informant and other persons were trespassing on their land. The informant party became aggressive. A scuffle ensued in which Baljeet Singh suffered a head injury. The petitioners and other co-sharers filed a complaint regarding the incident with the police. The police 5 2026:HHC:32275 registered FIR No.87 of 2026 against the informant and other co-sharers. The informant filed a false FIR against the petitioners and other co-sharers, which was registered as FIR No. 88 of 2026. The allegations in the FIR are false. The petitioners and co-accused had filed bail petitions before the learned Special Judge, Sirmour, but these were dismissed on a technical ground. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 4. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant and his family members were cultivating the land on 10.05.2026. Petitioners came to the spot and abused the informant and other persons in the name of their caste. They also tore the clothes of the womenfolk. One of the petitioners inflicted an injury on the face of Prakash Chand by means of a kirpan. The other petitioners caused injuries to the informant party by means of an iron rod, darat, kirpan, gandasi and other weapons. The police came to the spot and took the informant party to the Police Station. The police registered the 6 2026:HHC:32275 FIR and investigated the matter. Both the parties were found to be injured. An application for demarcation was filed, but the report had not been received. 03 sticks and 01 kirpan have been recovered. The video recording was also viewed, but it could not be found out which party had used the darat. The petitioners would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 5. The informant also filed objections reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioners and their family members compelled the informant party to compromise the matter. A complaint was made to the Police Station and the police registered an FIR No. 91 on 14.05.2026. Petitioner Kuldeep Singh damaged the path leading to the informant’s house. A Kalandra was filed regarding this incident. The allegations against the petitioners are serious. The petitioners were aware of the caste of the informant party, and they had insulted the informant party to humiliate them because of their caste. Grievous injuries were caused. The petitioners would influence the witnesses. They burnt the tractor of the informant party bearing registration No. HP-17G-0239 on 14.05.2026, and an FIR 7 2026:HHC:32275 No. 91 of 2026 was registered regarding the incident. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 6. I have heard Mr Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Aditya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1-State and Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Mr Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The possession of the land was delivered to the petitioners, and the informant party was the aggressor. The petitioners had joined the investigation as per the order passed by the Court. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 8. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1-State submitted that the petitioners had caused grievous injuries to the informant party. They had no right to take the law into their own hands. They would intimidate the 8 2026:HHC:32275 witnesses and interfere with the fair trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 9. Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant, submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are severe. They had humiliated the informant party in the name of their caste by hurling filthy abuses. The petitioners had threatened the informant party to compel them to compromise the matter. They would intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 11. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. InGudikantiNarasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) 9 2026:HHC:32275 “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing 10 2026:HHC:32275 of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is 11 2026:HHC:32275 established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and 12 2026:HHC:32275 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the 13 2026:HHC:32275 gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 13. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The status report shows that a video recording of the incident was produced by the informant in which both the parties were shown to be snatching darat from each other. Therefore, the video recording prima facie does not show that the petitioners were the aggressors. 15. The status report specifically mentions that the petitioners were the co-sharers of the land and the possession was delivered to them. The informant party was ploughing the field with the help of the tractor. These allegations prima facie show that the petitioners were in possession and the informant 14 2026:HHC:32275 party had deliberately tried to interfere with their possession by using a tractor to plough the fields. 16. The status report also mentions that the recovery of the weapon has been effected. 17. It was submitted that the grievous injuries were caused to the informant party by means of a darat. However, the police have registered the FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 115(2), which is voluntarily causing hurt to a person. Therefore, the nature of the offence is not such as would show that the nature of the offence is heinous. 18. It was submitted that the petitioners had tried to intimidate the informant party and FIR no. 91 of 2026 was registered regarding the incident. The submission will not help the informant. The FIR no. 91 of 2026 does not mention the name of any person and its registration is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners. 19. It was submitted that the petitioners had abused the informant party in the name of their caste with a view to humiliate them in the public view. The petitioners would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if they are released on bail. 15 2026:HHC:32275 This submission cannot be accepted to be correct. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute between the parties was a land dispute and the intention to humiliate or insult the informant party cannot be gathered at this stage. 20. No other point was urged. 21. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the order dated 19.5.2026 is made absolute during the trial of the case. 22. The observation made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 4th August, 2026 (Chander)