1 2026:HHC:39608 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 1754 of 2026 Decided on     : 16.09. 2026 Rahul …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Mr. Karan Kapoor and Mr. Sidharth, Advocates. For the respondent   : Mr.   Tejasvi   Sharma   and   Mr.   H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, assisted   ASI   Dalip   Kumar,   Police Station   Paonta   Sahib,   District Sirmaur, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Rahul,   has   filed   the   present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising   out   of FIR   No.126/24   dated   27.08.2024 registered   under  Section   115(2),   118(1),   351(2),   109, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39608 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. According to the applicant, he is an innocent person   and   has   been   falsely   implicated,   in   the   present case. He has no role to play in the alleged incident. 3. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation, in the present case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant or at his instance. 4. All   these   facts   have   been   pleaded   to demonstrate   that   the   custodial   interrogation   of   the applicant is no longer required by the police, in the present case. 5. After the completion of the investigation, police has   filed   the   charge­sheet   before   the   Court   of   learned Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Paonta   Sahib,   however,   till date, only 17 witnesses have been examined. 6. All   these   facts   have   been   pleaded   to demonstrate   that   in   the   near   future,   the   chances   of 3 2026:HHC:39608 conclusion of the trial  against  the applicant  are not so bright. 7. The applicant has also pleaded that he was on interim bail for a period of 15 days.  Highlighting the said facts, it has been argued by Shri Karan Kapoor, Advocate, learned   counsel   representing   the   applicant,   that   the applicant has not misused the liberty given to him by way of interim bail and has surrendered back to custody. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 9. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report disclosing therein that that on 26.7.2024, an intimation   was   received   in   Police   Station,   Paonta   Sahib from   Civil   Hospital,   Paonta   Sahib,   disclosing   that   one person   has   been   brought   for   treatment   in   an   injured condition from Amarkot. H.C. Dhanbir Singh, along with Const. Arun   Kumar   and   other   police   officials,   after recording their departure, reached at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. They had also visited Amarkot, from where injured Manjeet,   Raj   Kaur,   Shakeel   and   Ubed   Ali   and   accused Vikas Kumar and Rahul were brought for treatment to Civil 4 2026:HHC:39608 Hospital,   Paonta   Sahib. Their   medico­legal   examination was conducted. No complaint regarding beatings given to the accused was received. Thereafter, H.C. Ravinder Kumar No.504 requested the Medical Officer to conduct medical examination   of   injured   Yamin   Ali,   S/o   Fazaldeen,   R/o Amarkot, Paonta Sahib. 9.1. After   medico   legal   examination,   the   injuries caused to Yamin Ali were declared to be caused with sharp edged weapon. Thereafter, he was referred to Higher Center for   treatment. He   was   declared   to   be   not   fit   to   make statement. Other injured Ubed Ali, Manjeet Kaur and Raj Kaur   and   Shakeel   Khan   were   also   medico­legally examined. Their   MLCs   were   obtained. As   per   Medical Officer, injuries found on the person of injured Ubed Ali, Manjeet Kaur, Raj Kaur and Shakeel Khan were  simple in nature, caused with a sharp edged weapon. 9.2. During   investigation,   Manjeet   Kaur,   w/o Shakeel Khan, got her statement recorded under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein that she is working in a factory at Gondpur, Paonta Sahib, and is residing with her husband   Shakeel   Khan   in   a   rented   accommodation,   of 5 2026:HHC:39608 Yamin Ali from the last 2 ­2 ½ years. Her sister Raj Kaur, along with her son Mandeep Singh, had come to her on 17.8.2024. She has disclosed that her sister Raj Kaur had solemnized second marriage with accused Vikas, who used to maltreat her and compel her to leave her son, who is born from the loins of her first husband. Due to acts of accused Vikas, her sister Raj Kaur had started residing with her elder sister Ninder Kaur at Sardoolgarh, District Mansa, Punjab, had come to Paonta Sahib on 17.8.2024. 9.3. On 25.8.2024, Vikas had come to meet his wife Raj Kaur and told her that he is ready to reside with her in a rented accommodation at Amarkot. He has assured her that he will work in some factory at Amarkot. He had also assured to accept her son, born from the loins of her first husband. 9.4. On   26.8.2024,   on   the   pretext   of   searching   a suitable accommodation, accused Vikas remained out of the house and came back in the evening hours and said that he has selected a room and they will shift to the said room   tomorrow. Ten   minutes   thereafter,   at   about   7:30 p.m.,   accused   Vikas   also   called   his   brothers   Rahul 6 2026:HHC:39608 (applicant)  and  Vishal  in  the  room. All  of  them   started dragging Raj Kaur out of the room. Vishal was having a big knife and he tried to inflict the blow of knife to Raj Kaur. Complainant intervened and requested Vishal to settle the matter   amicably,  but, he refused to do  so and tried to inflict injuries upon the person of Raj Kaur. 9.5 On hearing commotion, Yamin Ali, land lord of complainant   also   came   there. Yamin   Ali   also   tried   to intervene and Vishal  inflicted blows of knife on the person of   Yamin   Ali   also. Blood   started   oozing   out   from   his stomach and chest. In order to save him, complainant, her husband and her sister Raj Kaur tried to intervene and in that process, they had also sustained injuries. After the incident, Vishal fled away from the spot. 9.6 Lastly,   the   complainant   has,   stated   in   her complaint   that   accused   Vikas   Kumar,   along   with   his brothers,   Rahul   (applicant)   and   Vishal,   hatched   a conspiracy and came to her room along with knife and inflicted injuries on the persons of complainant, Ubed Ali, Raj Kaur and Shakeel Khan, as well as, landlord Yamin Ali and also threatened to kill them. 7 2026:HHC:39608 9.7. On the basis of above facts, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against them, upon which, Police registered the FIR in question. Initial investigation was conducted by HC Dhanbir Singh. 9.8. On   27.8.2024,   HC   Dhanbir   Singh   visited   the spot and in the presence of complainant Manjeet Kaur and eye   witnesses,   prepared   the   spot   map   and   physical evidence   from   the   spot   was   taken   into   possession. Thereafter, complainant Manjeet Kaur, as well as, injured Ubed   Ali   and   Shakeel   Ali   produced   their   blood   stained wearing apparels, which were taken into possession. The spot was photographed and videographed. Statements of witnesses, under Section 180 of the BNSS, were recorded. 9.9. During investigation, Section 332(C) of the BNS was deleted and Section 333 of the BNS was added, in this case. 9.10. On 27.8.2024, the then Incharge, Police Station, Paonta   Sahib,   Kartar   Singh   had   taken   over   the investigation   of   the   case   and   inquired   the   matter   from accused persons Vishal, Rahul (applicant) and Vikas. 8 2026:HHC:39608 9.11. HC Dhanbir Singh requested the Senior Medical Officer, Prakashdeep Hospital, Uttrakhand to provide the case summary, upon which, the Medical Officer, Dr. Anil Prakash again declared Yamin Ali unfit to make statement and   submitted   the   case   summary,   according   to   which, injuries caused to Yamin Ali were dangerous to life, upon which, Section 109 of the BNS was added, in this case. 9.12. Thereafter, accused persons were arrested on 28.8.2024 at about 9:30 p.m. They were produced before the Court on 29.8.2024, from where, they were remanded to police custody till 31.8.2024. 9.13. On   30.8.2024,   injured   Yamin   Ali,   during treatment,   expired. His   dead   body   was   taken   into possession and the same was brought to Civil Hospital, Paonta   Sahib,   where   his   post   mortem   examination   was conducted. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to his   relatives   for   conducting   the   last   rites. Thereafter, Section 103 (1) of the BNS was also added, in this case. 9.14. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge­sheet against the accused persons, including the applicant. Charges   have   been   framed,   and   as   per   the 9 2026:HHC:39608 status   report,   out   of   29   prosecution   witnesses,   17 witnesses  have  been  examined,  2 were  given   up  and   9 witnesses are yet to be examined. 10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11. The applicant, in the present case, was arrested on 28.08.2024. In the status report, no specific allegations have   been   leveled   against   the   applicant,   except   his presence at the spot. 12. So   far   as   the   criminal   conspiracy,   which, according to the prosecution case, was allegedly hatched by accused persons; namely Vishal, Rahul (applicant), and Vikas   is   concerned,   that   would   be   proved   during   the pendency of the trial. 13. Moreover,   considering   the   fact   that   the   fatal injury was not attributed to the applicant, nor, any active role has been attributed to him, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the applicant, in judicial custody, that too, for an indefinite period. 10 2026:HHC:39608 14. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 15. Consequently,   the   applicant   is   ordered   to   be released   on   bail   in   case  FIR   No.126   of   2024,   dated 27.08.2024,   registered   with  Police   Station,   Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1),   351(2),   109,   103   and   3(5)   of   the   BNS,   on   his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­, with two sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 16. This   order,   however,   shall   be   subject   to   the following conditions:­ a) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial 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)   Applicant   shall   not   tamper   with   the   prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any  manner whatsoever; c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and d) Applicant   shall   not   leave   the   territory   of   India without the prior permission of the Court. 11 2026:HHC:39608 17. Any   of   the   observations,   made   herein   above, 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 application. 18. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 19. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail,   Nahan,   District   Sirmaur,   through   e­mail,   with   a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software. 20. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Sirmaur at Nahan. The Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court   within a period of one 12 2026:HHC:39608 month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 16, 2025 ( ps ) PRADEEP Digitally signed by PRADEEP Date: 2026.09.16 18:30:23 +0530