Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 2.7.2025 vs State Of H.P on 7 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2025:HHC:21620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 753 of 2025 Reserved on : 2.7.2025 Decided on : 7.7.2025 Yog Raj ...Applicant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. AGs, Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent-State.
Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Yog Raj has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2 2025:HHC:21620 BNSS') for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 207 of 2024, dated 25.8.2024, registered under Sections 103, 127 (2), 125(B), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS' Act), with Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, 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 offences, for which, he has been arrested, by the police, in this case.
3. According to the applicant, the Police could not collect any direct/indirect evidence, connecting the applicant, with the crime in question.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed, and nothing is to be recovered from him, at his instance. All these facts have been pleaded to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the police and no 3 2025:HHC:21620 useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 10.2.2025.
6. 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.
7. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 7.1. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 25.8.2024, HC Amarjeet Singh, I.O., Police Station, Baddi, telephonically informed the Police that at a place known as 'Sandoli Khawadiyan', on the road, one person is lying in injured condition, and one person 4 2025:HHC:21620 is lying unconscious. Both these persons were stated to be taken for treatment to CHC, Baddi, upon which, Inspector/SHO, alongwith other police officials reached at Sandoli Khawadiyan, in order to verify the facts.
7.2 When, they reached at CHC, Baddi, two persons were found injured, who were brought for treatment. The Doctor declared injured Lakshmi Kant as fit to make statement. Thereafter, Lakshmi Kant was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, for treatment, whereas, Rahul was declared dead.
7.3 At CHC, Baddi, statement of Lakshmi Kant was got recorded, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein that he is resident of the address, mentioned in the complaint. He alongwith, two other persons were stated to be residing in a rented accommodation at Panchkula. Rahul was stated to be the close friend of complainant.
5 2025:HHC:21620 7.4 The complainant has further got recorded in his statement that on 25.8.2024, he, alongwith his friends, have reached Baddi at about 3:30 p.m. After reaching there, Rahul, alongwith two other persons, went to bring Ganja (charas), upon which, complainant objected that they came from outside and they should spend the money wisely, however, while paying the money for Charas, the persons, who allegedly were selling the Charas, demanded more money, and when, Rahul refused to pay the amount to the said persons, then, a quarrel had taken place. Those persons, being local residents, brought dandas from nearby huts and the complainant party was mercilessly beaten.
7.5 According to the complainant, he does not know the assailants, but can identify them, in case, they are shown to him. The assailants were stated to be the young persons, between 20 to 27 years of age. The complainant was also not aware about the name 6 2025:HHC:21620 of the place, where incident had taken place. However, the said place was near road. Thereafter, complainant and his friend Rahul were taken to CHC, Baddi, where complainant came to know that his friend Rahul has expired. As such, he requested that action be taken against those unknown persons, upon which, the Police registered the FIR in question. 7.6 Thereafter, the spot was got inspected from FSL expert. As per the direction of the FSL expert, physical evidence, so found there, was preserved and taken into possession. Thereafter, Section 127(2) of the BNS was added, in this case. The dead body of Rahul was brought to IGMC, Shimla, for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, the dead body of Rahul was handed over to his relatives, for performing his last rites.
7.7 During investigation, involvement of Chetan Singh, Ram Karan, Karan Kumar @ Soni Bangala was found in the incident. These three persons were 7 2025:HHC:21620 associated in the investigation, and were arrested, on 26.8.2024, at 7:35 p.m. 7.8 Since, complainant had got recorded in his statement, under Section 173 of BNSS that he can identify the assailants, the Test Identification Parade of the aforesaid three persons was to be conducted, as such, they were kept, in muffled faces. Their medico-legal examination was also got conducted from CHC, Baddi, in the same condition (muffled faces). The wearing apparels, worn by the aforesaid persons, at the relevant time, were also taken into possession.
7.9 On 27.8.2025, accused Chetan, Ram Karan and Karan Kumar were produced before the Court and were remanded to the judicial custody. During investigation, the SIT also found involvement of Nitin Kashyap, Sonu Kumar, Chhotu, Bablu Aheerwar, Shantanu and Praveen. They were also arrested on 27.8.2024 at 4 P.M. Since, their Test Identification 8 2025:HHC:21620 Parade, was also to be conducted, as such, they were also kept in muffled faces.
7.10 Thereafter, accused Ravi Kumar was also arrested on 30.8.2024. He was also kept in muffled face, for conducting the Test Identification Parade. Thereafter, accused Ajay Kumar was also arrested and he has also been kept in custody in muffled face, for conducting the Test Identification Parade. 7.11 On 4.9.2024, the Test Identification Parade was conducted by the learned JMFC-2, Solan, and all the 11 persons were got identified by Ankush. 7.12 On 4.9.2024, accused Rahul Kumar was arrested, in this case. On 5.9.2024, accused, Rahul Kumar, during police remand, has identified the place and memo under Section 23 of the BSA was prepared.
7.13 On 10.9.2024, accused Sonu Kumar made statement, under Section 23 of the BSA and identified the kiosk, and got recovered the bamboo 9 2025:HHC:21620 stick, which was also taken into possession. On 11.9.2024, accused Karan Kumar also made statement, under Section 23 of the BSA, and got recovered the bamboo stick, painted with red colour paint, from tin shed, situated at Chakka road, Baddi, which was also taken into possession. CDRs of the mobile phone numbers of accused persons were obtained from the service provider. 7.14 On 11.9.2024, all the accused persons, had identified the place of occurrence, hence, memo under Section 23 of BSA was prepared. On 11.9.2024, Sanjeev Kumar, @ Sonu made statement under Section 180 of BNSS, according to which, Yog Raj (applicant), had directed accused Chetan, through video call, to bring the complainant party to the gambling place at Chakka road. Thereafter, the unknown persons are stated to have beaten them up, and without providing them treatment, they were 10 2025:HHC:21620 taken here and there. Due to this fact, one person is stated to have expired.
7.15 With the help of artificial intelligence, involvement of accused Prakash Chand was found and he was associated in the investigation and later on, arrested on 14.9.2024 at 6:30 p.m. 7.16 During investigation, on 17.9.2024, accused Prakash Kumar made a statement, under Section 23 of BSA and identified the shop of Yog Raj (applicant), allegedly used for gambling, and got recovered the scanner, which was also taken into possession. 7.17 On 18.9.2024, accused Lukesh @ Jassi was associated in the investigation, and arrested on 19.9.2024. During investigation, on 21.9.2024, applicant Yog Raj has made a statement, under Section 23 of BSA and identified the place of gambling and disclosed that from his place of gambling, at Chakka road, he can get recovered the 11 2025:HHC:21620 scanner. Thereafter, compliance of Section 23 of BSA was made.
7.18 On 6.11.2024, accused Rakib was arrested from Utter Pradesh. During investigation, accused Rakib has disclosed that on 25.8.2024, he alongwith his companions, Shantanu, Praveen Kumar and others had beaten the unknown persons at truck union, Baddi. On 10.11.2024, accused Rakib had identified the said place.
7.19 It has been mentioned in the status report that on the basis of investigation, it has been found that on 25.8.2024, deceased Rahul, alongwith his companions, Lakshmi Kant, Saurav, Navneet @ Shiva, Ankush, Kapil, Karan, Ritik and Arjun reached at Baddi, by bus. Thereafter, they are stated to have gone to a place at bye pass road, near fire station, where deceased Rahul and Lakshmi Kant had gone to kiosk to bring Ganja (charas), and the other persons remained on the road. Accused Sonu, 12 2025:HHC:21620 Anmol @ Tejua, Ravi Kumar, Bablu Aheerwar and Nitin Kashyap were already present, where accused Sonu had given a packet of ganja (charas) to Rahul Rai, but dispute had arisen between them, with regard to the value of said ganja (charas). Rahul Rai (deceased) and Lakshmi Kant, after arguing with them, are stated to have fled away from there. They were stated to have been chased by accused Sonu, Anmol @ Tejua, Ravi Kumar, Bablu Aheerwar and Nitin Kashyap, upto truck union, Baddi, where they had nabbed Rahul and Lakshmi Kant, Ankush and Navneet, whereas, other companions of deceased Rahul, namely, Ritik, Arjun, Karan, Saurav and Kapil are stated to have fled away from the spot. 7.20 Thereafter, accused persons, telephonically called their companions, namely, Sonu, Praveen, Rahul, Shantanu, Prakash, Lukesh, Rakib, Chhotu, Chetan and CCL (a) (name withheld). Thereafter, accused Sonu, Nitin Kashyap, Karan Kumar, Ravi 13 2025:HHC:21620 Kumar, Shantanu, Rakib and CCL (b) had beaten up Rahul and Lakshmi Kant with the sticks. From the spot, accused Chetan made a video call to applicant Yog Raj and shown him the injured persons, upon which, applicant Yog Raj stated that lesson is required to be taught to them and further directed him to recover their mobile phones and money and take them to their gambling place.
7.21 Thereafter, at the instance of applicant Yog Raj, accused Chetan alongwith other persons, brought them in their vehicle, bearing No. HR-49J- 4947 to their gambling place.
7.22 It has been mentioned in the status report that accused Karan Kumar @ Sonu Bangala and Shantanu cut the hair of deceased Rahul and thereafter, all the injured persons were taken to Katha from Khabadiya Sandoli, where, due to commotion, they threw the injured persons, near cremation ground at Khabadiya Sandoli, from where 14 2025:HHC:21620 injured Ankush and Navneet left the spot by taking lift from someone, whereas deceased Rahul and injured Lakshmi Kant were lying on the spot. 7.23 It has further been mentioned in the status report that accused Chetan and applicant Yog Raj had talked to each other, at the time of the incident. 7.24 On the basis of aforesaid facts, it is the case of the Police that against accused Chetan, CCL(a), CCL(b), Karan Kumar, Nitin Kashyap, Sonu Kumar, Chhotu, Bablu Aheerwar, Shantanu, Praveen, Ravi Kumar, Rahul Kumar, Prakash Kumar, Lukesh @ Jassi, Rakiv and applicant Yog Raj, charge sheet has been prepared for the offences, punishable under Sections 103, 3(5), 127(2), 125(2) and 61(2) of BNS, whereas accused Ajay Kumar and Ram Karan are stated to be kept in Column No. 12.
7.25 Charge Sheet is stated to have been filed on 23.11.2024.
15 2025:HHC:21620 7.26 Against, applicant Yog Raj, the following cases are found to have been registered:
i) FIR No. 306, dated 9.12.2020 under Section 13-A3- 67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi;
ii) FIR No. 311/2020, dated 13.12.2020, under Section 13-A3-67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi;
iii) FIR No. 54/22 Dated 3.3.2022, under Section 13- A3-67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi.
7.27 In nut-shell, as per the Police, role attributed to applicant Yog Raj, in this case, is that accused Chetan made a video call to him, from the spot and all the injured persons were shown to applicant Yog Raj, who, said that a lesson is required to be taught to them and the amount is to be recovered from them, and directed him to beat them and take them to their gambling place.
7.28 It is the further allegation of the Police against applicant Yog Raj that on his direction, accused persons took the complainant party in their vehicle No. HR-49J-4947 to their gambling place.
16 2025:HHC:21620 7.29 It has been apprehended in the status report that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he may coerce the witnesses, as no witness has yet been examined, in this case.
7.30 In the supplementary status report, filed on 28.4.2024, the Police has mentioned that as per the IPDR (Internet Protocol Detail Record), applicant Yog Raj, at the time of incident, had used the internet regularly. Applicant is stated to be a clever person, as such, it has been apprehended that he would not make manual calls, and could not be contacted through CDRs of his phone.
7.31 Applicant is also stated to be the main conspirator, in the crime in question. 7.32 In the status report, filed on 1.5.2025, following cases are stated to have been registered, against the applicant:
i) FIR No. 358/2019, dated 2.10.2019, u/s 148, 149, 323,427 and 506 IPC, P.S. Pinjore;
17 2025:HHC:21620
ii) FIR No. 341/21, Dt. 23.8.2021, u/s 307 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Pinjore.
Iii) FIR No. 251/23. dated 10.5.2023, u/s 379, 411 IPC and 29, 32,33 IF Act, P.S. Pinjore;
iv) FIR No. 250/24 Dated 3.6.2024, u/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Pinjore;
v) FIR No. 306/20, dated 9.12.2020, u/s under Section 13-A3-67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi;
ii) FIR No. 311/2020, dated 13.12.2020, under Section 13-A3-67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi;
iii) FIR No. 54/22 Dated 3.3.2022, under Section 13- A3-67 of Gambling Act, P.S. Baddi.
7.33 In the subsequent status report, it is the stand of the Police that IPDR and CDR of applicant Yog Raj have been obtained and placed on record of the learned trial Court, by submitting the supplementary Challan. However, report from the SFSL is still stated to be awaited.
7.34 As per the case, set up by the Police, in this case, due to beatings given by accused, at the instance of applicant, Rahul sustained injuries and expired, and Lakshmi Kant had also sustained injuries. The main role, which has been attributed to 18 2025:HHC:21620 the applicant, in this case, is that at the time of incident, applicant Yog Raj had used the Internet regularly and accused Chetan made a video call to the applicant at 16:54:04 p.m. and used IP No. 2401:4900:5D22:3735, upon which, IP detail was obtained and as per the IP detail, on 25.8.2024, at about 16:56 p.m., the same was used by sim No. 88940-94871 and said sim No. was found to be registered in the name of accused Chetan.
8. Merely, for the ground that applicant has been shown to be the main conspirator, in the crime in question, as per the stand taken by the Police, in the status report, relief, for which, the applicant, is otherwise entitled for, cannot be declined.
9. Admittedly, the applicant was not present at the spot and as per the police case, accused Chetan made a video call to him and shown all the four injured persons to him, upon which, he had allegedly directed him to beat them up and take them 19 2025:HHC:21620 to their gambling place. Thereafter, according to the police, on the direction of applicant Yog Raj, accused Chetan and other accused persons had beaten up the complainant party. These allegations of criminal conspiracy would be proved during the trial.
10. Merely for the reason that seven cases have been registered against the applicant, without any proof of conviction, in any of the cases, or any proof that the applicant has been declared as habitual offender, as per the provisions of law, the bail application cannot be rejected. Moreover, the bail application of the applicant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a valuable human life has been lost, in the alleged crime.
11. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and charge sheet is stated to have been filed. Considering the stage of the trial, according to which, charges have not yet been framed, in this 20 2025:HHC:21620 case, chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, are not so bright.
12. The applicant is permanent resident of District Panchkula, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is released on bail, he may not be available for trial.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, 'Dr. Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh', reported in 2015, AIR SCW 1052, has held that object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed and the detention should not be putative. Relevant paragraph-12 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be putative or preventive. Seriousness of the allegations or the availability of the material in support thereof are not the only consideration for declining the bail. The delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the 21 2025:HHC:21620 accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period, if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time."
14. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed in the status report, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed upon the applicant, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail.
15. Dismissal of the application would be nothing, but a punitive act, which is ante-thesis to the golden principle that accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
16. Considering all these facts and the fact that the trial of the case will take sufficient long time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that applicant is able to make out a case, in his favour and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.
17. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in case FIR No. 207 of 2024, dated 22 2025:HHC:21620 25.8.2024, registered under Sections 103, 127 (2), 125(B), 61(2), 3(5), on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
18. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
a) Applicant shall 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 the appropriate application;
b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and
d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
19. Any of the observations, made herein above, 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.
23 2025:HHC:21620
20. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant.
21. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Nalagarh, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
22. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Nalagarh is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, Nalagarh is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.
(Virender Singh) Judge July 7, 2025 Kalpana Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH KANWAR Date: 2025.07.07 18:07:33 IST 24 2025:HHC:21620