Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 14.5.2025 vs State Of H.P on 20 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2025:HHC:14600 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.5.2025 Date of decision: 20.5.2025 Inder Dev. ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr.N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Divya Raj Singh Thakur, Mr.Karan Veer Singh Thakur and Ms.Ritu Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking bail in case FIR No. 239 of 2021, dated 26.8.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3 (2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 1 2 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC&ST Act).
2. Status report stands filed. Record was also made available.
3. Present application is third application filed by the petitioner in this Court.
4. Petitioner in the year 2022 had approached Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., by filing Bail Application No.129 of 2022 for enlarging him on bail. The said application was dismissed by Special Judge, Kullu, vide order dated 26.07.2022.
5. Thereafter petitioner had preferred Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2054 of 2022 in this High Court by raising various pleas including the plea raised in present petition, except the plea related to delay in trial. All issues were considered and without commenting upon merits of the case, however, taking into consideration parameters and factors required to be taken into consideration at the time of considering the bail application, bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 1.12.2022 with observation that it was not a case where no prima facie case, at all, was made out against the petitioner.
6. Petitioner had assailed the order dated 1.12.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2054 of 2022 by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2135 of 2023, titled as Inder Dev Vs. State of H.P., which was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.2.2023 3 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 with observation that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment at that point of time with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer in accordance with law before the Trial Court in changed circumstances in future.
7. Petitioner had again approached the Trial Court by filing bail application CID Case No. & Reg. No. 296 of 2023, which was dismissed on 20.9.2023.
8. Thereafter petitioner preferred Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2747 of 2023, titled as Inder Dev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh on 21.10.2023 the ground that for filing Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2022 by co- accused Lekh Raj, record of the Trial Court was summoned to this High Court and proceedings in the Trial had been stalled and thus it was claimed that petitioner was entitled for bail. The said bail application was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Court with observation that Trial was stalled at the instance of co-accused, whereas no efforts had been made by other accused including the petitioner to expedite Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2022 or to make effort for sending back the record of the Trial Court so as to enable the Trial Court to proceed further in the Trial, and keeping in view the nature and manner of commission of offence as well as period of detention in comparison to punishment provided for the offence in reference, the application was dismissed.
4 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025
9. Now present petition has been filed for enlarging the petitioner on bail on the grounds raised earlier and also on some additional fresh points.
10. Prosecution case is that on 25.8.2021 at about 7:30 P.M. an information was received in Police Station, Kullu that at near Saeubag at Chhururu, some mishap had occurred. This information was transmitted by Police Station staff to QRT team and to SI Kushal Kumar, the then SHO, who was on patrolling. SI Kushal Kumar, out of his Patrolling Party, deputed ASI Vij Ram and Constable Om Parkash to reach Regional Hospital, Kullu to handle the situation on arrival of injured, and alongwith remaining team of Patrolling Party he rushed to spot. On reaching near Café Water Edge (hereinafter referred as Café) at Chhururu, he met Constables of QRT Team of Kullu Police who were controlling the traffic on the spot, managing preservation of the spot and were waiting for Ambulance to shift injured persons from the spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram, and other onlookers were also present on the spot. Paras Ram was lying in katcha portion of road on side of road. He was bleeding badly and at some distance from him, in the middle of the road, his broken vehicle was there. On left front seat thereof injured Yuma Devi wife of Paras Ram was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victims to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. On reaching the 5 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 Hospital, treatment of injured was started in emergency. During treatment, statement of Yuma Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Vij Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Sections 307, 320, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
11. Keeping in view serious condition of victims during night, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, Mandi. As provisions of SC&ST Act were attracted, therefore, in compliance of communication dated 26.8.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, investigation was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu.
12. As per medical record, following major injuries were found on the person of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram.
(a) Yuma Devi.
"1. Open wound left leg-blunt injury .
2. Lacerated wound left leg-blunt injury.
3. Swelling both arms-blunt injury.
4. Swelling distal phalange both arms-blunt injury.
5. Open wound left thumb blunt injury.
6. Fracture both bone forearm-grievous nature.
7. Fracture left leg-grievous nature."
(b) Paras Ram:
"(1) Lacerated Wound (3x2 CM) over frontal region. (2) Bruise (variable size) over right and left shoulder 10x3, 2x1 cm, 5x3 cm. (3) Bruise (10x3 cm) over left shoulder.
6 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 (4) Open wound over right forearm (3x1 cm, 3x1 cm, 4x2 cm). (5) Open wound over left forearm.
(6) Bruise (6x4 cm) over left thigh 9 cm from ASIS. (7) Bruise (5x3 cm over Right thigh 10 cm from ASIS. (8) Open wound (3x1, 4x2, 3x1.5 cm, 4x1) over left leg. (9) Open wound (4x1) cm over right leg.
(10) Lacerated wound (6x3 cm) over left arm.
(11) Bruise (5x3 cm) over left knee.
(12) Bruise (variable size).
(13) fracture hand both bone forearm & leg both side."
13. During investigation another statement of Yuma Devi was also recorded on 2.9.2021 in Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, wherein she had given detailed statement about dispute and incident with explanation that at the time of recording of previous statement immediately after the attack when she was in Kullu Hospital, she was grievously injured and was under shock and influence of various kinds of drugs/injections administered to her by the doctors, and was in semi- conscious state, and in between her statement was being recorded by the Police and in such state of mind and body she could not narrate the facts of incident properly and completely.
14. Statement of victim has also been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu on 9.11.2021. As per prosecution case, as also narrated in the statement of victim Yuma Devi dispute had arisen between complainant party and assailants party with respect to sale and purchase of land and a threat was extended by Khimi Ram alias Kewlu to the injured party, whereupon on 23.8.2021 7 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 injured party went to Police Station, Kullu, but their FIR was not registered and they were called on next morning and on 24.8.2021, when they went to Police Station, Kullu, Khimi Ram alias Kewlu was also summoned there, but he did not come to I.O., but kept on sitting in his vehicle behind the Police Station and when by noon Yuma Devi felt hungry, she alongwith her husband went outside the Police Station to have some eatables. When they reached near District Court Kullu, Khimi Ram followed them in his vehicle and stopped his Car near the couple and took out a danda from Dickey of his Car, whereas his driver Vijay took out a rod, and both of them tried to beat her husband and at that time Sidhu was also accompanying the assailants. Sidhu withheld her husband, whereas Khimi Ram went on beating him. The moment Vijay tried to give blow to her husband, Yuma Devi rushed and snatched the rod from him and asked to leave her husband, with warning that otherwise she will also retaliate. By that time, two Policemen also came, one of them caught her husband with help of Sidhu, and Khimi Ram kept on beating her husband. Yuma Devi hit the vehicle of Khimi Ram with rod and cried loudly asking to leave her husband with threat that otherwise she would damage the vehicle. In the meanwhile, Vijay came and snatched the rod from her and slapped her and thereafter Khimi Ram, Policemen and Vijay beat her husband. With fist blow of Khimi 8 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 Ram, her front tooth was dislocated. Thereafter Police came and scuffle ended and they went home.
15. Yuma Devi has further stated that on 25.8.2021, they were again called in the Police Station at 10:00 A.M., wherefrom they were sent for medical examination and thereafter they returned back to Police Station, where in front of Additional S.P., Khimi Ram and injured party explained their respective versions. Despite advice of Additional S.P., Khimi Ram did not agree to resolve the dispute and they left the Police Station. Thereafter husband of Yuma Devi received a telephonic call from Raj Kumar, who was with Chander Kiran alias Gaurav, Sidhu, one Advocate and brother-in-law of Khimi Ram for the whole day. Raj Kumar had suggested to resolve the dispute by sitting together, but husband of victim had replied that Khimi Ram did not pay heed to the advice of Additional S.P., therefore, there was least possibility of compromise and had stated that tomorrow they shall meet in Police Station. At 6:00 P.M., Gaurav again called them telephonically and said that incident, which had taken place was not a good thing and asked to resolve the matter by sitting together. By that time, they reached near Water Edge Café, but movement of their vehicle was blocked by parking a Scorpio in the middle of the road and Khimi Ram alias Kewlu, Sidhu, Vijay, brother-in-law of Khimi (Akhil) and other persons came from front side and some persons came from back side and hit their vehicle with stones and when they 9 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 stopped the vehicle, assailants attacked the couple. Husband of complainant was taken to back side of the vehicle and was beaten badly by breaking his foot and causing other injuries, and she was also beaten on the seat of the vehicle. Assailants tried to pull her out, but she held the liver of gear with her leg, as such they could not pull her out. Apart from breaking her arms and leg, they torn her clothes and molested her.
16. Yuma Devi has narrated different role of accused persons in detail, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in statement recorded on oath before Judicial Magistrate First Class.
17. As per prosecution case, after having CCTV Footage of Café, it has been found that assailants were present in café since about quarter to 4:00 P.M. on 25.8.2021 and they were waiting for victims and the moment victims reached there, they stopped their vehicle and attacked them. In CCTV Footage one Ritik was also found present, who has been interrogated intensively and in his statement he has also stated that Khimi Ram, Vijay, Sidhu and Akhil and some other persons unknown to him were present in Café and were discussing about some matter at a side and they were trying to hide something from him. He has also witnessed the incident and has stated that Akhil was also involved in the attack.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was arrested on 14.9.2021 and since then he is in judicial 10 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 custody whereas he has been arrayed as an accused in present case without any incriminating evidence or material against him and he has not been named by any witness, including complainant Yuma Devi, as assailant in the incident. Further that, though he has been noticed present in the Café at relevant time in CCTV footage, but he was not sitting with main accused Khimi Ram and others who had conspired and planned to attack deceased Paras Ram and his wife complainant Yuma Devi, but he was sitting inside the Café and he was not among the assailants, but had gone outside the Café out of curiosity like other passersby of the Café and not even a single witness has named him as an accused or a person involved in attacking the victims and, therefore, going to Café alongwith three other persons and walking hurriedly towards the spot of incident cannot be treated sufficient evidence to implicate the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. Further that, petitioner has not been found alongwith main accused persons, who have been named by the witnesses or have been noticed in the CCTV footage actively participating in the incident and, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
19 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that clothes of petitioner Inder Dev, alleged to have been worn by him on the day of incident, were sent to RFSL for examination and as per report of 11 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 RFSFL, no blood was detected on his clothes which substantiates that petitioner was not accompanying attacking party.
20. It has been advocated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been arrested on 14.9.2021 only for filing application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 10.9.2021, whereas incident had taken placed on 25.8.2021. According to him, petitioner was not arrested by the Police prior to filing of application for interim bail because there was and is no evidence against the petitioner to establish involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence even remotely. It has been submitted that there are nine accused in total and petitioner was having no enmity against the complainant party or motive to had a quarrel with the victim party or to finish Paras Ram. It has been stated that on the basis of CCTV footage being relied upon by the prosecution, only infrence which can be construed is that petitioner was found entering the Cafe, but he was not seen with any of the other accused persons, who allegedly had conspired to beat and kill Yuma Devi and Paras Ram, i.e. victim party.
21. It has been further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Khimi Ram had a land dispute with complainant party and they had a quarrel amongst them one day before the incident, whereas petitioner was not involved in any such activity. It has been contended that there is no blood or DNA on the clothes of the petitioner 12 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 and there is no act attributable to the petitioner for presuming his involvement in the commission of crime.
22. It has also been argued on behalf of petitioner that present petition deserves to be allowed, particularly when except one, no witness has been examined till date, and petitioner is behind the bars since last about 3 years and 9 months.
23. It is also canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that evidence on record including postmortem report indicates that cause of death of Paras Ram was not injuries or wounds received by him in the incident, but deceased Paras Ram had died for suffering pneumonic and kidney disease. Further that deceased died after 20 days of the incident when he was under treatment in PGI Chandigarh and, thus, there is no relation with the injuries received by the deceased and the cause of his death. It is also submitted that deceased was having only lacerated wound injuries, leg and body injuries with contusions and bruises only and nature of injuries alleged to be received by Paras Ram clearly indicates that this is not a case of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. It was contended that gap between time of receiving injuries and time of death clearly established that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out and thus on this sole ground, after detention of 3 years 9 months, petitioner is entitled for bail.
13 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his aforesaid plea has placed reliance upon medico legal case summary, postmortem examination report and death summary.
25. It has been submitted that no evidence except recording statement of one witness has been recorded till date, whereas one accused Lekh Raj is absconding. It has been submitted that there are total 92 witnesses, i.e. 80 witnesses in the challan and 12 witnesses in supplementary challan, and keeping in view the stage of the trial, it would be again restarted after apprehending accused Lekh Raj.
26. It has been contended that keeping in view nature of the injuries, initially FIR was registered under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC only, however for death of Paras Ram, Section 302 IPC was added in the matter. It has been further submitted that on the date of incident deceased Paras Ram was cooperative, conscious well oriented to time and place and was fit to give statement, but despite that his statement was not recorded and only statement of his wife Yuma Devi was recorded, which is also not sufficient to implicate the petitioner in present matter.
27. It has been further submitted that at the time of medical examination after arrest, injuries were also found on the body of Khimi Ram, which indicates that incident was not one sided.
14 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025
28. With the aforesaid plea, facts and circumstances, it has been contended that petitioner is entitled for bail.
29. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that 38 years old petitioner is a married person having two minor children and old ailing bedridden mother, because his six brothers are living separately and are not looking after his family and mother, and petitioner is sole bread earner for all of them and, therefore, petitioner, who has been implicated falsely despite being innocent and not connected in commission of offence in any manner, is entitled for bail.
30. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that incident took place on 25.8.2021. Khimi Ram was arrested on 26.8.2021 and he was subjected to medical examination on 27.8.2021 and, therefore, according to him, it cannot be said with certainty that Khimi Ram had received injuries on 26.8.2021 in the incident because there is a gap between the incident and arrest of Khimi Ram as well as his medical examination. It has been further submitted that petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail prior to death of Paras Ram which was rejected on 10.9.2021, whereas Paras Ram had expired on 13.9.2021 and FIR was converted from 307 to 302 IPC and thereafter Room Singh and petitioner Inder Dev were arrested on 14.9.2021.
31. Learned Additional Advocate General has re-iterated earlier submissions made on behalf of State recorded in judgment dated 15 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 11.12.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 2747 of 2023 which are being re- produced herein after.
32. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner Inder Dev, in CCTV footage, has been noticed coming on the spot on 25.08.2021 at 3.50.51 p.m., [(as per Camera time which was lacking behind 22 minutes 32 seconds from Indian Standard Time (IST)], alongwith three other accused persons namely Chaman Singh alias Shyama, Kamal Singh alias Tiger and Room Singh and he has been noticed entering in Café after one minute, and thereafter till occurrence of the incident he was present in the Café alongwith other accused persons and was sitting in a Shed located below the lawn of the Café. At 6.40.28 p.m. (time according to CCTV), all accused persons came out from the gate on signal of main accused Khimi Ram and attacked victims and at 6.43.06 p.m. and petitioner was noticed running towards spot of incident from the out gate. He has been identified in CCTV footage by independent witnesses and Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) Dharamshala has also reported that petitioner was there in CCTV footage. As per Tower location of mobile of petitioner Inder Dev, he was found present on the spot of occurrence.
33. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that when on the call of Khimi Ram all assailants rushed outside the Café to attack the victim, petitioner is clearly visible rushing outside the Café 16 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 alongwith others, including Chaman Singh alias Shyama, Kamal Singh alias Tiger and Room Singh.
34. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that Taxi driver Hem Raj alias Anku has also substantiated involvement of petitioner in the offence by stating that on 25.08.2022 Chaman Singh alias Shyama, Kamal Singh alias Tiger alongwith two other persons, not known to him, were dropped by him by his Taxi at Café Water Edge. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that during 24.08.2022 and 25.08.2022 petitioner Inder Dev and Room Singh had conversation on mobile for ten times.
35. It has further been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that plea taken on behalf of the petitioner, that he was not among the main accused involved in commission of offence, is not correct as Chaman Singh alias Shyama, Kamal Singh alias Tiger and Room Singh have been named by eye witness Ritik as persons hitting the car with sticks and beating the victims. Further that, eye witness Rajan Sharma has also named Chaman Singh alias Shyama, Kamal Singh alias Tiger as active participants in conspiracy and attacking the victims. Therefore, it has been submitted that absence of name of the petitioner in the statements and also absence of blood on his clothes cannot be made basis to claim that petitioner was not involved in commission of offence in furtherance of common intention of all accused 17 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025 persons as his presence has been established through CCTV footage and he has been noticed running towards place of incident alongwith other co-accused with whom he had come to the Café.
36. Learned Additional Advocate General has also referred report dated 14.9.2021, wherein it has been stated that injuries received by Paras Ram were antemortem and cause of death was bilateral pneumonic consolidation and trauma induced acute kidney injury consequent to injuries described. He has further pointed out that it was opined by the Doctor that pattern of injuries is suggestive of assault as alleged. Further that cause of death opined at the time of postmortem was also confirmed by histopathology examination. He has further submitted that it has been clarified with respect to the cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report that Paras Ram had died on account of pneumonic consolidation and traumatic accuts kideny injury occurred on account of injuries received by him at the time of incident and, therefore, he has contended that it is misconceived notion that deceased Paras Ram died for reasons not related to the injuries received by him during the incident.
37. It has been further submitted that there is no changed circumstance for entitling the petitioner to enlarge him on bail after dismissal of previous application vide judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 2747 of 2023.
18 2025:HHC:14600 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 391 of 2025
38. Taking into consideration submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also material on record including statements of victim, MLCs of Victim, nature of injuries received by victims, possibility of mental state of Yuma Devi at the time of recording her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and also statement of Ritik, Rajan Sharma and Ravinder Negi and conclusion of investigation, but without commenting upon merits of the case, however, taking into consideration parameters and factors required to be taken into consideration at the time of considering bail application, I find that it is not a case where no prima facie case at all is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage.
39. Any observations made hereinabove shall have not bearing on the merits of the case and have confined strictly for disposal of this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 20 May, 2025 Judge.
(Keshav)