IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.133 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 _________________________________________________________ Nikita ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Negi, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. SI Inder Singh, PS Patlikuhal, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, present in person. _________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Nikita, who is behind the bars for almost one year and eight months, has approached this Court through Legal Aid Counsel in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.45 of 2024, dated 12.05.2024, under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and SI Inder Singh, has come present with the record. Record perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that complainant, namely Sanjay Kumar, who happens to be brother of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- deceased Ashok Kumar, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, alleging therein that on 12.05.2024 at about 09:15 a.m., while he had gone from his house for work, he received a telephone call from his son, who informed him that he has received a telephone call from Shagun i.e. daughter of the deceased Ashok Kumar, from Patlikuhal, that her father, deceased Ashok Kumar, had died due to fall in the bathroom. Complainant alleged that he along with his cousin Avinash and Sanjeev Kumar Soni reached Pathlikuhal and found that death of his brother has not happened on account of fall, rather somebody has given him beatings with iron rod. He alleged that there were bloodstains not only in the bedroom but also on the walls, roof, ceiling and the table lying in the bed room. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and since then, she is behind bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail- petitioner, she has approached this Court for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial. 3. Mr. Arvind Negi, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the bail petitioner, vehemently argued that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated. While referring to the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Mr. Negi submits that as per initial version of the complainant, deceased died on account of fall in the bathroom and there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner, who happens to be wife of the deceased, after having given beatings to the deceased Ashok Kumar, had placed or dragged his body into the -3- bathroom. Mr. Negi states that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, rather bail-petitioner has been implicated simply on the basis of statement made by the complainant. He states that bail-petitioner is behind bars for almost one year and eight months and till date, prosecution has been able to examine only two prosecution witnesses out of 19, as such, she otherwise deserves to be enlarged on bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent Court of law, 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 by him, she does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse record, Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is a quarrelsome person and she used to frequently pick quarrels with her husband, who at the relevant time was working as chowkidar. He states that children of the bail-petitioner and deceased, aged 18 and 15 years, have categorically stated that their father died on account of injuries inflicted upon his body by their mother. He states that report of FSL clearly suggests that blood of the deceased matched with the blood found on the clothes of the bail-petitioner, which were otherwise hidden by the bail-petitioner immediately after the alleged incident. He states that bail-petitioner herself got the recovery of iron rod, allegedly used by her to cause head injury to the deceased, effected and the report of FSL -4- clearly reveals that blood found on the weapon used in the commission of offence matches with the blood of the deceased. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner was otherwise unhappy with her husband for the reason that he was not doing any job, but yet used to consume liquor daily. He states that since two prosecution witnesses have already been examined and for recording the statement of remaining witnesses, learned Court below has fixed the case for 26.03.2026, prayer made on behalf of the bail-petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, is wholly misplaced, as such, deserves outright rejection. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially statements of the children of the deceased and complainant recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Arvind Negi, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the bail-petitioner that bail-petitioner has been falsely implicated. Record reveals that both bail-petitioner and deceased were working as Chowkidar and on the date of alleged incident, they were sleeping in the room provided in the factory premises, whereas their children were sleeping in the residential accommodation. Complainant though at first instance alleged that his son received a telephone call from the daughter of the deceased informing him that her father had died on account of fall in the bathroom, but once he reached the spot, he noticed that death had not occurred due to fall in the bathroom but on account of injuries inflicted upon the person of the -5- deceased with iron rod. He also alleged that though deceased was claimed to have died on account of fall in the bathroom but bloodstains could be seen on the walls, roof, ceiling and the table lying in the bed room. Statements of the children of the deceased and bail-petitioner, aged 18 and 15 years, respectively, further suggest that bail-petitioner is a quarrelsome person and there were frequent quarrels inter se deceased and the bail-petitioner. After the alleged incident, bail- petitioner allegedly came in the room of her children and attempted to hide one bed sheet, with which she subsequently covered the body of her husband. As per FSL report, blood found on the clothes of the deceased matched with the blood of the deceased. Similarly, bloodstains along with the hair of the deceased were also lifted from the wall of the bedroom. Besides above, post-mortem report clearly reveals that injury suffered by the deceased on his head could be inflicted by the weapon of offence i.e. iron rod. Blood on the iron rod, allegedly used by the bail-petitioner to hit the deceased, has also matched with the blood of the deceased. Though there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, but certainly there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicative of the complicity of the bail-petitioner in the alleged commission of alleged. 6. Similarly, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. Arvind Negi, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the bail-petitioner, that bail-petitioner deserves to be granted bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, as in the case at hand, two prosecution witnesses already stand examined and for recording the statement of remaining prosecution witnesses, learned Court below has -6- already fixed the matter for 26.03.2026. Leaving everything aside, this Court, having taken note of the fact that bail-petitioner is accused of heinous crime i.e. murder of her husband, is not inclined to consider the prayer made on behalf of the bail-petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for almost one year and 8 months, coupled with the fact that only 17 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and for that purpose, Court below has already fixed the matter for 26.03.2026, this Court hopes and trusts that learned Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight months from today. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to render proper assistance on behalf of the prosecution, enabling the learned Court below to conclude the trial in terms of instant order passed by this Court. Needless to say, this Court on judicial as well as administrative sides, has been repeatedly advising the learned Courts below to conclude the trial of under trials on top most priority so that their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period. Registry is directed to apprise the Court below with regard to passing of the instant order. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 11, 2026 (Sunil)