1 2026:HHC:17084 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. M.P. (M) No.515 of 2026 Reserved on : 6.5.2026 Decided on: 15.5.2026 Vishal … Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Vishal has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 126 of 2024, dated 27.8.2024, registered under Sections 332 (c), 115(2), 118(1), 351 (2), 109, 103, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as 2 2026:HHC:17084 the ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever with the crime in question. 3. The applicant is presently lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. He has highlighted his clean antecedents to seek the relief of bail. 4. The relief of bail has also been sought on the basis of delay in conclusion of the trial, which has solely been attributed to the prosecution. 5. Apart from this, the applicant has also taken the plea of alibi to contend that his presence at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. 6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Nahan, H.P. However, the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 18.3.2026. 3 2026:HHC:17084 7. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 9. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, 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, alongwith 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 Hospital, Paonta Sahib. Their medico-legal examination was conducted. No complaint regarding 4 2026:HHC:17084 beatings given to the accused was received. Thereafter, H.C. Ravinder Kumar No. 504 requested the M.O. 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, Raj Kaur and Shakeel Khan were also medico-legally 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 5 2026:HHC:17084 is residing with her husband Shakeel Khan in a rented accommodation, of Yamin Ali from the last 2 -2 ½ years. Her sister Raj Kaur, alongwith 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 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 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 6 2026:HHC:17084 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., Vikas also called his brothers Rahul and Vishal (applicant) in the room. All of them started dragging Raj Kaur out of the room. Applicant Vishal was having a big knife and he tried to inflict the blow of knife to Raj Kaur. Complainant intervened and requested applicant 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 applicant 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, applicant Vishal fled away from the spot. 7 2026:HHC:17084 9.6 Lastly, the complainant has, stated in her complaint that Vikas Kumar, alongwith his brothers Rahul and Vishal (applicant), hatched a conspiracy and came to her room alongwith 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. 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 8 2026:HHC:17084 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 applicant Vishal and accused Rahul and Vikas. 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 9 2026:HHC:17084 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 charge-sheet against the accused persons, including the applicant. Charges have been framed, and as per the status report, filed on 8.4.2026, out of 29 prosecution witnesses, 13 witnesses have been examined. As per the status report, 16 witnesses are yet to be examined. 9.15 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10 2026:HHC:17084 10. As per the stand taken by the Police, applicant alongwith his two brothers had come to Amarkot to take Raj Kaur with them. As per the stand taken by the Police, accused Vikas has solemnized marriage with Raj Kaur, who is already married and having a 12 years old son, who, as per the police case, is mentally retarded and Raj Kaur was not ready to leave her son. 11. On 25.8.2024, Raj Kaur had come to village Amarkot, where her sister Manjeet Kaur was residing alongwith her husband Shakeel Khan, in the house of Yamin Ali (deceased). It is also the case of the police that all the three accused, including the applicant, had come to take Raj Kaur with them, but she was not ready to go with them. Manjeet Kaur, Shakeel Khan and Ubed Khan also tried to make them understand. Thereafter, a scuffle had taken place between the accused persons, Shakeel Khan, Ubed Khan and Manjeet and in that process, 11 2026:HHC:17084 applicant Vishal inflicted fatal knife blows on the person of Yamin. 12. According to the stand of the Police, trial has commenced and thirteen witnesses have been examined, as such, from the pace of the trial, this Court is satisfied that there is no undue delay in the trial, as FIR was registered on 27.8.2024. When, the trial is at the advanced stage, then, releasing the applicant on bail, would give wrong signal to the society that after being named as accused in a serious offence, like murder, the applicant is moving freely in the society and it will encourage other persons to take law in their hands. 13. While deciding the question of bail, a delicate balance between the larger interest of the society and the personal liberty of the applicant has to be maintained. 14. As regards the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, qua the fact that eye witness Ubaid Ali has not identified the 12 2026:HHC:17084 applicant, during his cross-examination, as prosecution witness, before the learned trial Court, the evidence, so adduced, before the learned trial Court, is to be considered by the said Court, while deciding the question of guilt of the accused. As such, non-identification of the accused/applicant by the eye witness is too short to grant the relief of bail to the applicant. 15. So far as the plea of alibi, as contended by the applicant, is concerned, the same is to be considered by the learned trial Court, during the trial. The said prerogative of the learned trial Court cannot be taken away by this Court, in these proceedings. 16. Considering the above facts, in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not able to make out a case, for grant of bail, in this case. As such, the present application is dismissed. 13 2026:HHC:17084 17. 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 15.5.2026 Kalpana