Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:38859 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No. : 1697 of 2026 Decided on : 10
th September, 2026 Munshi Marandi
…Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) ApplicantMunshi Marandi has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing her, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 72/2022, dated 25.05.2022, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Manpura, Police District
2 2026:HHC:38859 Baddi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. As per the applicant, investigation of the case is complete. The bail has also been sought on the ground that more than four years and three months have elapsed and the prosecution could not complete its evidence, as such, there is inordinate delay in the trial. 4. According to the applicant, there are total 34 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 16 have been examined and six witnesses have been given up and case is fixed on 08.10.2026 to 14.10.2026, for prosecution witnesses. 5. Highlighting the above facts, it is the further case of the applicant that the chances of conclusion of the trial against him in the near future, are not so bright. As such, relief of bail has been sought. 6. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving similar bail application before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2023. Thereafter, the applicant has again filed similar application
3 2026:HHC:38859 before the learned trial Court, which was also dismissed on
28.11.2024. 7. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that his coaccused Dulhar Kishku, has already been released on bail, by this Court while deciding Cr.MP(M) No.913 of 2026, titled as ‘Dulhar Kishku versus State of Himachal Pradesh’. 8.
Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 9. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 10. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.05.2022, one Arun Kumar, son of Sh. Jagdish Prasad, resident of Lakhimpur, U.P., had lodged the missing report of his nephew Ravi Prakash son of Sh. Putan, resident of Lakhimpur, U.P. Thereafter, HC Anil Kumar No. 8 had conducted the search to trace said Ravi Prakash. 4 2026:HHC:38859
10.1. On 25.05.2022, one Manoj Kumar, son of Naresh, submitted to the police that his cousin brother Ravi Prakash, who has left his house on the intervening night of 21.05.2022 and missing report was lodged on 23.05.2022, with Police Station Manpura, his dead body was found in the jungle of Theda village, upon which, the then SHO Mahinder Singh, along with police officials, reached at the spot. 10.2. At the spot, Sh. Avinash Singh, Gulshan, Arun Kumar etc. were found present. Pradhan Gram Panchayat Manpura was also present there. The said dead body was identified as the dead body of Ravi Prakash. On the spot, complainant Avinash Singh son of Sh. Ram Chander, made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., disclosing therein, that from the last eight months, he is working as watchman with Mcload Company Theda and he, along with his nephew Ravi Prakash was residing in the rented accommodation owned by Babal Thakur in village Kharuni. Ravi Prakash was also working with Mcload Company. 10.3. On 21.05.2022, during the evening hours,
5 2026:HHC:38859 complainant and Ravi Prakash were present in their room. Then at about 7:00 PM, Ravi Prakash left the room to purchase the vegetables. At about 10:00 PM, Ravi Prakash came back along with two boys namely Munshi Marandi and Manu Kishku, resident of Jharkhand.
Ravi Prakash kept the vegetables in the room and apprised the complainant that he will leave his companions Munshi Marandi and Manu Kishku in their room. 10.4. Thereafter, Ravi Prakash did not return back. Next day, he also did not come back. Thereafter, complainant apprised his brother Arun Singh. Both of them searched for him, but he was not found. Applicant Munshi Marandi was married and his wife Dulhar Kishku was having extra marital relations with Ravi Prakash. Munshi Marandi was also aware about this fact. Due to this, Munshi Marandi had a grudge against Ravi Prakash. Another accused, who was found to be minor and hereinafter referred to as ‘CCL’, was also having illicit relations with Dulhar Kishku. CCL had also threatened Ravi Prakash and from the said day, Munshi Marandi,
6 2026:HHC:38859 Manu Kishku and CCL were not found in their rooms. 10.5. On 23.05.2022, complainant and Arun Kumar got lodged the missing report of Ravi Prakash with Police Station Manpura. Search was made for Ravi Prakash, but he could not be found. However, his dead body was found in the bushes near the jungle in village Theda. 10.6. The complainant has lastly got recorded in his statement that due to the grudge, as referred to above, Ravi Prakash was killed by applicant Munshi Marandi, Manu Kishku and CCL. Upon this, the police registered the case under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and criminal machinery swung into motion. 10.7. Police visited the spot and the spot was photographed and videographed. Forensic team also visited the spot. Dead body was lifted from the spot and taken to the hospital. Physical evidence from the spot was collected. Dead body was initially taken to CHC Nalagarh for postmortem, from where, dead body was referred to IGMC Shimla for postmortem. 10.8. The cause of death has been mentioned in the
7 2026:HHC:38859 postmortem report, as under:
“In all probabilities, the deceased died as a result of crushing trauma to head grossly.”
10.9.
Thereafter, CCTV footage of the area was obtained and perused. During investigation, CDRs of mobile phone number of the accused persons were obtained and it was found that on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2022, Dulhar Kishku had talked to accused Manu Kishku and deceased Ravi Prakash. She was also found to have in constant touch with CCL and one Mool Chand. 10.10. During investigation, on 02.06.2022, accused Dulhar Kishku made a disclosure statement, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, disclosing therein, that she has kept concealed two jeans, coloured black and blue, in her rented room, under a suitcase. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, she got recovered those clothes. 10.11. On 04.06.2022, Dulhar Kishku made a statement, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, and got recovered her and her husband’s clothes, which were taken into possession. 8 2026:HHC:38859
10.12. During investigation, it was found that deceased Ravi Prakash used to call accused Dulhar Kishku. This fact was also disclosed by Dulhar Kishku to accused Nitish Kumar and applicant Munshi Marandi. Thereafter, all the accused, namely Munshi Marandi (applicant), Mool Chand, CCL and Manu Kishku hatched a conspiracy to kill Ravi Prakash. 10.13. Consequently, on 21.05.2022, applicant Munshi Marandi and Manu Kishku took Ravi Prakash to vegetable market Kharuni, where they consumed liquor. Thereafter, they took Ravi Prakash to their room, from where, they took him to jungle, where, they had killed Ravi Prakash and concealed his dead body. 10.14. During investigation, accused Manu Kishku, Mool Chand were not nabbed, as such, they have been declared as proclaimed offender. 10.15. After the completion of investigation, police has filed the charge sheet. 10.16. The case is now stated to be listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 08.10.2026
9 2026:HHC:38859 to 14.10.2026. As per the status report, out of 34 witnesses, 16 have been examined and five given up.
Now, the case is listed for recording the statements prosecution witnesses on 8th to 14th October, 2026. 10.17. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11. The relief of bail has been sought, on the ground, of delay in trial. Considering the fact that the prosecution case is now listed for consecutive four days, in the month of October, 2026, for recording the statements of remaining PWs, it cannot be said that the trial against the applicant, in near future, cannot be concluded. As such, on the ground of delay in trial, the relief of bail cannot be granted. 12. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, the relief to coaccused Dulhar Kishki, has been given, in view of the window provided by Section 480(ii) of the BNSS, which is reproduced, as under:
“480. When bail may be taken in case of nonbailable offence. xxx xxx xxx Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii)
10 2026:HHC:38859 be released on bail if such person is a child or is a woman or is sick or infirm.”
19. Even otherwise, the role attributed to the applicant is altogether different from the role allegedly attributed to coaccused Dulhar Kishku. 20. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 23. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. (Virender Singh) Judge 10th September, 2026 (ps)