Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 28.11.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2025
2025:HHC:41887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2521 of 2025
Reserved on: 28.11.2025
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025
.
______________________________________________________________
Raman .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
...Respondent
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
rt
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent- : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma,
State Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 39/24 dated 26.03.2024 registered at Police Station Rampur, Distt. Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution's case, the informant and the deceased were celebrating Holi and consuming liquor together, when the wife of the accused ____ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 22025:HHC:41887 told him that some people were touching her inappropriately under the influence of liquor. The accused asked them to leave the place. This led to a scuffle. The allegations of beating were .
levelled against the petitioner and others. The police recorded the confessional statement of the brother of the accused, which is legally inadmissible. There is nothing on record to prove the common intention shared by the petitioner with the co-
of accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.03.2024. He belongs to a respectable family, and there are rt no chances of his absconding. The police have already filed a charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him; 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 informant Dil Bahadur, Rajender Bohra (since deceased) and others were celebrating Holi on 25.03.2024 in the house of Tilak. The informant asked Sagar to join the celebrations. The informant and Rajender consumed liquor. One drum was brought, and the people started dancing on its beat.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 32025:HHC:41887 One person objected to the noise being created, which led to a scuffle. Rajender Bohra was beaten. The informant tried to save Rajender Bohra, but the informant was attacked with a sharp-
.
edged weapon. The informant ran away from the spot.
Subsequently, Rajender Bohra succumbed to his injuries. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested Ming, Sagar Thapa and Raman. Dil Bahadur of produced the blood-stained zipper, which was seized by the police. Ming made a disclosure statement, which led to the rt recovery of the knife. As per the report of analysis, the blood-
stained zipper and the blood-stained knife yielded highly degraded DNA. However, the DNA profile obtained from the high neck and lower of Ming, the hood and pants of Sagar Thapa, and the undervest of the petitioner matched the DNA profiles obtained from the blood sample of Rajender Bohra (since deceased). As per the post-mortem report, the deceased Rajender Bohra died due to the cumulative effect of intracranial haemorrhage and hemorrhagic shock. The result of the investigation shows that Ming, Sagar Thapa, and the petitioner, Raman, had given beatings to Rajender Bohra and Dil Bahadaur. Rajender Bohra was seriously injured, and he ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:41887 succumbed to his injuries. Raman, Sagar and Ming had absconded and were apprehended while going towards Nepal.
The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Statements .
of 21 witnesses have been recorded out of 47 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 22/23.12.2025. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the of petitioner, and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
rt
5. Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner did not inflict the blow upon the deceased. The police have filed a 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.
6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Nepal. He would abscond to Nepal in case of his release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 52025:HHC:41887
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:
of "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 rt 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 ex-
ercised 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 thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and stand-
ing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibil- ity of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the wit- nesses being tampered with, the larger inter- ests 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 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:41887 legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evi- dence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against .
the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in sup- port of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upad-
hyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through of 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, rt 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 sus- tained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contex- tual 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 it- self, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warrant- ing the grant of bail. The nature of the of- fence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:41887 of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter ." (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) .
1977, this Court held that although it is estab-
lished that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evi-
dence 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 of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 rt 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-ap- plication 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 been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, nor- mally, 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 compli- ance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other cir- cumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are :
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 82025:HHC:41887
(i) whether there is any prima facie or rea-
sonable 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 re-
of peated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the wit- nesses being influenced; and rt
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail." (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the as-
pect of application of mind and requirement of judi- cious 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 unrea-
soned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC On- Line Pat 2857) 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) "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 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:41887 cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accu-
sations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accu- sations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material .
brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie con-
clusion 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 of 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 fol- low a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged rt against an accused." (emphasis supplied)
9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The status report shows that the blood of the deceased Rajender was found on the petitioner's undervest.
This prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.
11. It is submitted that, as per the prosecution, the knife was with Ming, who had caused the fatal injuries, and the petitioner had not caused any injury to Rajender or the informant Dil Bahadur, which shows his innocence. This submission will not help the petitioner. It was laid down by the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:41887 Hon'ble Judicial Committee of the Privy Council about a Century Ago in Barendra Kumar Ghosh versus Emperor, AIR 1925 (PC) 1, that in crimes as in other things, "they also serve who .
only stand and wait." It was observed:
"23. As soon, however, as the other sections of this part of the Code are looked at, it becomes plain that the words of Section 31 are not to be eviscerated by reading them in this exceedingly of limited sense. By Section 33, a criminal act in Section 34 includes a series of acts and, further, "act" includes omission to act, for example, an rt omission to interfere to prevent a murder being done before one's very eyes. By Section 37, when any offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence. Even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in other things, "they also serve who only stand and wait." By Section 38, when several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
Read together, these sections are reasonably plain. Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for "that act" and "the act"
in the latter part of the section must include the whole action covered by "a criminal act" in the first ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:41887 part because they refer to it. Section 37 provides that when several acts are done so as to result together in the commission of an offence, the doing of any one of them, with an intention to cooperate in the offence (which may not be the same as an .
intention common to all), makes the actor liable to be punished for the commission of the offence. Section 38 provides for different punishments for different offences as an alternative to one punishment for one offence, whether the persons engaged or concerned in the commission of a of criminal act are set in motion by one intention or by the other."
12. Therefore, the petitioner is prima facie involved in the rt commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which is punishable with capital punishment or imprisonment for life. 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:
"6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant fac- tors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are con- cerned with the penultimate stage, and the princi-::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 12
2025:HHC:41887 pal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liber- ated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprison- ment. In this perspective, the relevance of consider-
.
ations is regulated by their nexus with the likely ab-
sence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated, 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 extreme of 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. rt p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Co-
leridge 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 ap- pearance 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 ele- ments 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 charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death."::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 13
2025:HHC:41887
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."
.
13. Considering the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail.
14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground.
This submission is not acceptable. The status report shows that rt only 21 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 22/23.12.2025. This shows that substantial progress has been made in the present case, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial.
15. In any case, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2018) 12 SCC 129: (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:
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS 142025:HHC:41887 "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 of Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688"
16. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek bail on the rt ground of delay in the progress of the trial.
17. No other point was urged.
18. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.
19. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th December, 2025 (meera) ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:35:24 :::CIS