Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 30.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
2026:HHC:11138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2738 of 2025
Reserved on: 30.03.2026
.
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
Mridul ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : M/s. Ravi Tanta and Shakti
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 112 of 2024 dated 27.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a young person aged 19 years belonging to a respectable family. He was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 22026:HHC:11138 falsely implicated without any evidence. The investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. F.I.R.
.
No. 111 of 2024, dated 26.10.2024, was registered against the petitioner arising out of the same incident, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, at Rampur Bushahr. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court of and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. He would abide by all the terms and rt conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were informed about the recovery of a dead body on 26.10.2024. The police went to the spot and found a semi-naked dead body at a distance of 100 meters beneath the road in Bangla. The deceased was identified as Santosh Ram. It appeared from the examination of the dead body that the cause of death was a fall from a height, and multiple injuries were present on the dead body. The police conducted the inquest report and recorded the statement of Raju, the roommate of the deceased, who disclosed that he and the deceased had consumed liquor on ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:11138 25.10.2024. The deceased was heavily intoxicated, and he abused Raju. Raju went away to his room and took the mobile phone of .
the deceased with him. Subsequently, the dead body was found.
Raju disclosed afterwards that he had come to know that Rafi, Mridul (the present petitioner), Rahul and Sachin had given beatings to the deceased. The police interrogated them, and they of revealed that they had an altercation with the deceased and had given him beatings. They threw him in the field in an injured rt condition. They had also taken the liquor from the vend after threatening the salesmen with a gun. The police investigated the matter and took the samples. The dead body was sent to IGMC, Shimla for post-mortem examination. The police checked the mobile phones of the accused and found the photograph of Santosh Ram in an injured condition, which was taken on 25.10.2024. The police seized the mobile phone and the silver Kada, which was used to inflict the injuries. The accused identified the place where they had given beatings to the deceased. The police checked the CCTV footage and found the accused going towards the liquor vend Bahali at 7:37 p.m. and returning towards Bangla Chowk at 7:40 p.m. The accused were again seen going towards the liquor vend at 10:14 p.m. and returning towards ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:11138 Bangla Chowk at 10:27 p.m. Rafi and Mridul were seen going towards the liquor vend at 12:18 a.m. and returning at 12:21 a.m. on .
26.10.2024. They were seen coming towards Bangla Chowk on 26.10.2024 at 12:36 a.m. The police checked the mobile phone of Rafi and found a video of twenty seconds, which was sent to his WhatsApp account from the petitioner's mobile phone at 8:09 of p.m. One person was kicking the face and the chest of the deceased. The police checked the petitioner's mobile phone, but rt he had deleted the data from his mobile phone. Police seized the mobile phones of Rafi, Mridul and Sachin. Rafi also got recovered a motorcycle. The material objects were sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the report, the blood stains were detected on the pants and shoe of Rahul. The blood was detected in traces on the petitioner's shoes, but it was insufficient for further analysis. The DNA analysis showed that the DNA taken from Rahul's pants and the petitioner's shoe matched the DNA profile of the deceased.
The DNA from Rahul's shoe yielded highly degraded DNA that did not show amplification. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was blunt injuries sustained to the head and neck region in a case where the blood ethyl alcohol concentration ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:11138 at the time of death was 158.55 MG/DL. The report of the analysis of the mobile phone is awaited. Hence, the status report.
.
4. I have heard M/s Ravi Tanta and Shakti Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, of submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Raju was last seen with the deceased, and he had rt taken the mobile phone of the deceased. The police did not interrogate his role in the commission of the crime. The initial possibility that the deceased had fallen in a state of intoxication was not completely ruled out during the investigation, and the name of the person who had disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and other co-accused was also not found after the investigation. All these aspects made the prosecution's case highly suspect. The police have filed the charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 62026:HHC:11138
6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner .
and co-accused were seen going towards the place of the incident in the CCTV footage. Photographs of the deceased in an injured condition and a video showing a person kicking the deceased were found on the mobile phone of the co-accused. The petitioner's of shoe contained the DNA of the deceased. All the circumstances, prima facie, show that the petitioner was involved in the rt commission of a crime. The offence is heinous and punishable with capital punishment. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:
(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 7 2026:HHC:11138 considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) "7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also .
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England"
of (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 -- Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court rt considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:11138 thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused .
at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there of is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, rt (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) "3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:11138
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an .
elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also rt been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:11138
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx .
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) rt "35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis supplied)
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 11 2026:HHC:11138 gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
.
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
of
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.
So also, the heinousness of the crime...." rt
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The status report mentions that the police had found the photograph of the dead body of the deceased and a twenty-
second video showing someone kicking the deceased on the mobile phone of the co-accused. The petitioner's shoe contained the DNA of the deceased. The CCTV footage showed the movement of the petitioner and the co-accused around the place of the incident. The time stamp on the photograph and video recording shows that the petitioner and co-accused saw the deceased alive in an injured condition. Their further conduct of not informing ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 12 2026:HHC:11138 anyone about the discovery of the injured, prima facie, points to their involvement in the commission of the crime.
.
12. The submission that the deceased had fallen in a state of intoxication cannot be accepted at this stage, as it is not supported by the conduct of the petitioner and the co-accused.
They would have informed someone about the discovery of the of injured person, or at least they would not have taken the photographs and the video of the injured person being kicked.
13. rt It was submitted that the role of Raju was not investigated by the police. This submission will not help the petitioner. The circumstances showed that the petitioner and co-
accused were seen near the injured when he was alive. There is nothing on record to show that Raju had injured the deceased, whereas the presence of the photograph and video recording on mobile phones of the co-accused, prima facie, shows the connection of the petitioner and the co-accused with the deceased.
14. It was submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned Trial Court.
This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 13 2026:HHC:11138 MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of .
the accused after the commencement of the trial and grant bail because of some discrepancy in the testimony. It was observed: -
"14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial of Court or the High Court, should be loath to entertain the bail application of the Accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just rt before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or the acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only if the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."
15. Similarly, it was held by this Court in Suraj Singh v.
State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 268 that the Court exercising bail ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 14 2026:HHC:11138 jurisdiction cannot appreciate the contradictions in the evidence.
It was observed:
.
10. Petitioner has placed reliance on the statements of witnesses already recorded by the learned Special Judge, in support of his argument to the effect that, from perusal of these statements, reasonable grounds can be entertained for concluding prima facie innocence of the petitioner. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with of the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being recorded during the trial. Undisputedly, only some of the witnesses out of the entire list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have been examined. In these rt circumstances, it is not prudent to form any opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the petitioner on the basis of such partial evidence.
16. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail because of discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses during the trial.
17 The police have collected sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime under Section 103(1) of BNS, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment; thus, the penalty is severe. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115:
1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244:::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 15
2026:HHC:11138 "6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve.
When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different .
footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the of applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of rt extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows:
[Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51] "I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important:
the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 16 2026:HHC:11138 charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death."
7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The .
punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
18. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail. This submission will of not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129:
rt (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1363 that the period of incarceration would not by itself entitle a person to bail in a crime like murder. It was observed at page 141:
"24. As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for the grant of bail to the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 7775:(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743], it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688"
19. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial.
20. No other point was urged.
::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS 172026:HHC:11138
21. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.
.
22. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) of Judge 09th April, 2026.
(ravinder) rt ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 20:35:19 :::CIS