2026:HHC:38125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1584 of 2026 Reserved on: 03.09.2026 Decided on: 09.09.2026 Himesh Karki …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Sheetal Vyas and Yug Singhal, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 86 of 2026 dated 02.06.2026 registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:38125 2. It has been asserted that the accusation against the petitioner is founded upon a generalized statement of matrimonial discord/harassment without disclosing any specific proximity, intention or overt act on the part of the petitioner which could have constituted an instigation to commit suicide. The police arrested the petitioner based on these allegations on 02.06.2026. The police failed to collect sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The necessary ingredients for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS were not satisfied. The co- accused has been released on bail. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing an incomplete status report asserting that the police received information on 02.06.2026 that one woman had committed suicide. The police went to the spot, and the informant, Palomza, made a statement that the deceased, Paloma, was married to the petitioner, Himesh Karki, in the year 2006. The petitioner and Paloma used to 3 2026:HHC:38125 quarrel with each other after the marriage. One child was born to them, who is studying in Class 10+1. The petitioner and his mother asked Paloma to reside separately. The victim, Paloma, started residing separately in one room. She had filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner, and maintenance of ₹2,000/- was awarded to her, but the petitioner was not paying the maintenance to her regularly. The victim used to tell the informant that she was not permitted to meet her son, and the petitioner and his mother used to quarrel with her on one pretext or the other. The victim attempted to see her son through the windows, but the petitioner's mother pulled on the curtains to obstruct the view. The victim called the informant on the date of the incident at about 07.30 a.m. and said that she was fed up with the behaviour of the petitioner and his mother and she would do something. The informant advised her not to do anything, as she was visiting the victim. The informant went to the victim’s house and found that the victim had hanged herself. The matter was reported to the police, and the police investigated the matter. The police found a suicide note dated 02.06.2026, mentioning that she was committing suicide on her own and she had no 4 2026:HHC:38125 complaint against any person. Hence, no one should be harassed. The informant also produced two letters dated 06.09.2025, in which she had disclosed the harassment by the petitioner and his mother, who were not permitting the victim to meet her son. She had also expressed her desire that her dead body should not be touched by her husband, son or any other family member. She had also maintained diaries and had made entries in the year 2014 regarding the dispute between her and her husband. The viscera were sent to the FSL, but no blood or alcohol was detected. Blood was detected on the dupatta, which was used for hanging, and the dupatta was sufficient to bear the load of a person weighing 70 kg. The victim had committed suicide because of the repeated harassment by the petitioner and his mother. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.07.2006. The petitioner's mother has been released on bail on 06.07.2006. The result of analysis from RFSL Dharamshala is awaited. Hence, the status report. 5 2026:HHC:38125 4. I have heard Ms Sheetal Vyas and Mr Yug Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the generalised allegation made against him. The victim had written a suicide note stating that she was committing suicide on her own and nobody should be harassed. This note was written on the date of the incident. The police are relying upon the entries in the diary made in the year 2014 or the letter written in the year 2015, which were not proximate in time. The petitioner and his mother were residing separately from the victim, and they had no occasion to harass the victim. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgments in Anto Bruno & Anr vs. Inspector of Police (2023) 15 SCC 560, Sanjay Senger vs. State of H.P. (2002) 5 6 2026:HHC:38125 SCC 371, M. Arjunam vs. State (2019) 3 SCC 315 and Naresh Kumar vs. State of H.R. (2024) 3 SCC 573 in support of her submissions. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner and his mother had continuously harassed the victim and she was left with no other option but to take away her life. The allegations in the status report prima facie satisfy the requirement of Section 108 of BNS. A precious life was 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. 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 2026:HHC:38125 “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 benign 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 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 8 2026:HHC:38125 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 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 9 2026:HHC:38125 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 (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) 10 2026:HHC:38125 “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) 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….” 11 2026:HHC:38125 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The incomplete status report filed before the Court mentions that the petitioner and the victim had separated and the victim was residing separately. She had also filed a petition for maintenance before the Court, and the Court had awarded maintenance of ₹2,000/-. She had made entries in her daily diary in the year 2014 and had written two letters in the month of September 2025, saying that she was feeling harassed and fed up. However, she had also written a letter on the date of the incident in which she had mentioned that she was committing suicide on her own and no person should be harassed for her suicide. The suicide note, written on the date of the incident, has to be preferred to the entries made in the year 2014 or the letter written by her in the year 2025. Hence, prima facie, the contents of the suicide note do not connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 12. Further, it is undisputed that the victim was residing separately from the petitioner and his mother. It is not mentioned how she could have been harassed by the petitioner 12 2026:HHC:38125 and his mother when they were residing separately. The status report mentions that no complaint was found against the petitioner or his mother between 2019 and 2026. Similarly, no complaint was made by the victim to the Protection Officer under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the submission of Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has to be accepted as correct that the material on record is, prima facie, insufficient to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. 13. The status report mentions that the police have filed the charge sheet and the matter is listed for service of the accused on 05.09.2026, which means that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Further, the status report also mentions that the co-accused has been released on bail; hence, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. 14. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of Dharamsala. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report filed by the police, which means that the petitioner 13 2026:HHC:38125 has roots in the society and there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding or not facing the trial. 15. It was submitted that the statements of witnesses have not been recorded before the Court and the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses on his release on bail. This apprehension is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner because it can be removed by imposing the conditions. 16. The judgment cited at the bar need not be discussed in view of the findings recorded above and to prejudge the matter at this stage. 17. 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 bonds 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 he 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. 14 2026:HHC:38125 (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 SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his 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. 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, District Kangra, (H.P.) and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. 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 9th September, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.09.09 13:16:05 +0000