IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.353 of 2026 Date of Decision: 23.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rishabh Dev Sangar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 12.3.2026, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in case FIR No.13/2026 dated 28.01.2026 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 324 (4), 238-B, 118 (2), and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Mohan Lal has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2 2. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that pursuant to directions contained in order dated 12.3.2026, petitioner herein has joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him. While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by the petitioner pursuant to afore order, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed, he does not deserve any leniency. He submitted that since petitioner was also part of unlawful assembly, as is evident from CCTV footage coupled with the fact that he also inflicted injuries on the person of complainant Saurabh Thakur, prayer made by the petitioner for bail deserves to be rejected. He further states that since all the accused named in the FIR are behind bars, interim bail granted by this Court needs to be vacated. 3. To the contrary, Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate, appearing for the bail petitioner, states that bare perusal of FIR nowhere suggests that victim/injured ever named the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC. While referring to the CCTV footage, Mr. Chandel, states that though person wearing mask cannot be said to be petitioner here, but even if it is 3 presumed that he is petitioner, he simply kicked the petitioner, whereas grievous injuries came to be inflicted upon the person of complainant Saurabh Thakur with iron rod/sword by other accused. While referring to the status report placed on record, Mr. Chandel, states that there is nothing on record to suggest that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required especially when investigation is almost complete and no recovery is to be made out from the petitioner 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parities and perused material available on record, this court finds that on 28.1.2026, police received complaint from person namely Saurabh Thakur that while he along with his friends had gone to Ashu Dhabha for having dinner at 8:00pm, persons namely Naman, Anish Khan and his two friends Naresh and Anshul for no reasons, obstructed their path and gave them beatings. After recording of aforesaid statement, police got Saurabh Thakur as well as his friend Gaurav Thakur, medically examined at CHC Ghawandal, wherein injuries suffered by Gaurav Thakur were opined to be simple, but injuries suffered by Saurabh Thakur were opined to be grievous caused by a sharp edged weapon. Police also obtained specific opinion from doctor with regard to injuries suffered by Saurabh Thakur. 4 5. Pursuant to request of police, doctor who had examined Saurabh Thakur at AIIMS Bilaspur, opined injuries to be grievous in nature with further observation that same could be dangerous to his life. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted persons namely Naman Anish Khan, Naresh, Anshul and present bail petitioner. Save and except present bail petitioner, who has been ordered to be enlarged on bail, all the accused named herein above are behind the bars. 6. Having taken note of the fact that complainant Saurabh Thakur, at the time of making statement under Section 154 CrPC, nowhere mentioned name of the petitioner, enlarged him on interim bail with specific direction to join investigation. Petitioner has already joined investigation as has been fairly stated in the status report as admitted by Investigating Officer present in the court. As per status report, mask allegedly wore by the petitioner at the time of the accident has been also handed over. Careful perusal of statement of complainant Saurabh Thakur recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, on the basis of which, FIR came to be lodged, nowhere, suggests that he and his friend were given beatings by the present bail petitioner, rather complainant specifically named persons namely Naman, Anish Khan and his friends namely Naresh 5 Kumar and Anshul, but during investigation, police has taken into possession recording of CCTV footage of Ashu Dhabha, perusal whereof reveals that besides afore persons, one person wearing mask also hit the complainant with kicks. As per investigating agency, person who was wearing mask was hitting Saurabh Thakur with kicks is present bail petitioner, which fact has been seriously refuted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that once petitioner himself handed over mask allegedly wore by him at the time of the incident, his involvement in the case can be easily concluded, but this court is not persuaded to agree with afore submission of learned Additional Advocate General for two reasons; i) Complainant specifically named the persons, who allegedly attacked him and there is no mention of name of the petitioner. There is nothing in the statement of complainant that one person wearing mask also gave him beatings rather he specifically named Naman, Anish Khan and his two friends Naresh Kumar and Anshul and; ii) Mere recovery of mask, if any, at the behest of the petitioner may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the petitioner at this stage, especially when presence of petitioner on the spot is highly doubtful. 6 7. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General while referring to status report attempted to argue that though complainant failed to mention name of the petitioner, but once co-accused named by the petitioner, specifically disclosed to the police that person wearing mask was petitioner, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the police while registering case against him, however, aforesaid submission may not be of much relevance at this stage, especially when it is well settled that disclosure, if any, made by the co-accused may not be sufficient to conclude guilt of another accused. 8. Though case of prosecution shall be decided in totality of evidence collected on record by the Investigating Agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears to be no justification to send the bail petitioner to custody, especially when he has made himself available for investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial. 7 Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. 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. See: Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496. 11. Recently, 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 a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court 8 further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, 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. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 12.3.2026, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: (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/her 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. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the 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. 9 14. 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. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the 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. April 23, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge