2026:HHC:6087 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.272 of 2026 Decided on: 06.03.2026 __________________________________________________________________ Sh. Manoj Thakur ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with ASI Manoj Kumar, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Sequel to order dated 02.03.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No.20/2025, dated 28.01.2025, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 125, 125(b) and 238 of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, respondent/State has filed status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency and ASI Manoj Kumar, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:6087 2 2. Close scrutiny of record reveals that on 28.01.2025, Police received information that one lady aged 25 years has been brought for treatment on account of gunshot received by her on her back. Police after having visited the spot recorded the statement of the complainant namely Ms. Promila Devi. She alleged that on 28.01.2025 at 03:00 pm, while she along with her niece was sitting in the courtyard of her house, she heard loud sound, as a result thereof, she fell on the ground and started crying. She alleged that on the date of incident, some monkeys had come in the village and some person used air gun to scare the monkeys. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, Police lodged FIR against unknown person on 28.01.2025 under Sections 125(b) and 238 of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During investigation, it transpired that petitioner herein had actually used the air gun to scare the monkeys, but the shot fired from his gun hit the complainant Ms. Promila Devi, who suffered injuries on her back. In the afore background, petitioner came to be named in the FIR, however, before he could be apprehended, he approached this Court by way of instant bail petition and this Court vide order dated 02.03.2026 enlarged him on interim bail subject to his joining the investigation. Since petitioner has already joined the 2026:HHC:6087 3 investigation and nothing has been recovered from him, he has prayed that the order dated 02.03.2026 be made absolute. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to joining of investigation, states that air gun from which petitioner had fired shot is yet to be recovered. He states that petitioner has handed over monkey repellent gun, whereas in the alleged incident, he had used air gun, which till date has not been handed over to the Police. He states that since petitioner has not fully cooperated in the investigation, coupled with the fact that statements of material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law, it would not be in the interest of justice to make the order dated 02.03.2026 absolute, rather petitioner may be sent for custodial interrogation. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that FIR was lodged at the behest of complainant namely Ms. Promila Devi on 28.01.2025 i.e. one year back and complainant, named hereinabove, never alleged that she saw petitioner herein firing gunshot, rather she stated that she after having heard loud sound, fell on the ground. She further alleged that loud sound appeared to have been caused by air gun used by some person in the village to 2026:HHC:6087 4 scare the monkeys. Since complainant at no point of time named the petitioner, coupled with the fact that he has already handed over monkey repellent gun allegedly used in the incident, this Court is persuaded to confirm the order dated 02.03.2026, especially when it is not in dispute that pursuant to afore order, petitioner has already joined the investigation. 5. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences 2026:HHC:6087 5 but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for 2026:HHC:6087 6 remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.” 7. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that 2026:HHC:6087 7 some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (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. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 02.03.2026 passed by this Court, is made absolute, with following conditions:- 2026:HHC:6087 8 a. he shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. he shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. 13. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. March 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge