2026:HHC:36919 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1404 of 2026 Reserved on: 31.08.2026 Decided on: 01.09.2026 Leela Devi …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Nitin Soni, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 85 of 2026 dated 29.06.2026 registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the sister- in-law of the deceased. The petitioner was married in the year 2008 and is residing separately with her husband and three 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36919 children at Village Badi Sheel/Sherar, District Kullu. The petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR, and she was subsequently arrayed as an accused. The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner’s custody is not required. The supplementary statement was made against the petitioner that she used to harass the deceased whenever she used to visit her brother’s house. No specific overt act or specific date was mentioned. The allegations against the petitioner are vague. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the deceased/victim Dilli Devi was brought to the RH Kullu on 28.06.2026. She was referred to Medical College, Ner Chowk, from where she was referred to AIIMS Bilaspur. She died subsequently. Rani Devi, the mother of the victim Dilli Devi, made a statement that Dilli Devi was married to Sangat Ram in the year 2009. Four children were born to them. Urmila Devi, the mother-in-law of the victim and Sunder Singh, the brother-in- law of the victim, used to harass her. Urmila Devi used to say that she had not brought anything with her at the time of her 3 2026:HHC:36919 marriage. Sunder Singh also used to pick quarrels with the victim and used to harass her. The victim revealed these incidents to her mother. Dilli Devi consumed poison on 27.06.2026 and died subsequently. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The victim's children, Anita and Sagar, disclosed that Urmila Devi and Sunder Singh used to harass Dilli Devi on trivial matters. As per the report of the post-mortem examination, Dilli Devi had died due to the consumption of poison. It was found during the investigation that Sangat Ram used to cast aspersions on the victim’s character. Urmila Devi had also told Dilli Devi that the child was not born from the victim’s husband. The victim repeatedly left her matrimonial home because of the harassment. Subsequently, the relatives of the victim disclosed that the petitioner Leela Devi also used to harass the victim whenever she visited her parental home. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of her release on bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 2026:HHC:36919 4. I have heard Mr Nitin Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Nitin Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and her name was introduced during the interrogation. The statements made against the petitioner are vague and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. No particulars of the harassment, date or time have been mentioned. The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner is not required for interrogation. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. A precious life has been lost, and the petitioner should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5 2026:HHC:36919 8. 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. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu 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) “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 6 2026:HHC:36919 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 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 7 2026:HHC:36919 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 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: 8 2026:HHC:36919 (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 (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 9 2026:HHC:36919 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) 9. 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 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….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the initial report made to the police, and it was stated that Sunder 10 2026:HHC:36919 Singh and Urmila Devi used to harass the victim. The victim’s children also made a statement that Urmila Devi and Sunder Singh used to harass the victim. The informant made a supplementary statement of 03.06.2006 in which she stated that the petitioner harassed the victim whenever she (the petitioner) visited her parental home. Anita, daughter of the victim, stated in her statement recorded on 01.07.2026 that the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the victim whenever she visited her parental home. 12. The statement that the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the victim whenever she visited her parental home is highly vague. The date of the visit or the nature of the harassment has not been mentioned. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that these allegations are vague and are not sufficient to infer that the petitioner had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Further, the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR, and no reason has been assigned for the same. Hence, the material on record is not sufficient to detain the petitioner in custody. 11 2026:HHC:36919 13. The police have completed the investigation and the status report does not mention that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner asserted that she has roots in the society and this was not stated to be incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 14 It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses on her release on bail. This apprehension is not sufficient to deny bail as it can be removed by imposing conditions. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the 12 2026:HHC:36919 SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish her mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 16. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Kullu, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st September, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.09.01 15:09:01 +0000